we will pay for them long term when an upfront investment would make a difference. >> we are about to make some of the same mistakes we made in vietnam. the country will pay for it. >> thank you. i will add to what has been said already. washington state will take you back in a heartbeat if you will come. you did a great job i want to go back to the line of questioning. we have had an overseas base closing commission and after the last american bract, it was decided to bring 70,000 troops back from certain foreign locations, germany and korea, guam.ially and qua

we are looking at a fort bliss military construction project that has been completed this year that would take one of the bct's that was designated to come back from germany. it is prepared and ready for taking that bct from germany. the department changed the previous decision that we would fromg back two bct's germany to say we're not sure yeah. you have the milcom to take one bct back and on the five-year plan for military construction, there is $1 billion to be done in germany.

germany contributed 7% of the cost of our milcon as compared with japan that contributes 40%. i would just ask you as you are leaving in your last two weeks if you can give serious consideration to the fact that we do not get an effort from germany. $1 billion of military construction for changing army headquarters and bases, couldn't that money be saved rather than sitting duck out of personnel or health care or -- save rather than out of personnel or health care or systems that were modernized for our troops in take $1, can't we billion out of milcon that was supposed to be taken care of in

a previous administration? it seems like there is a disconnect from what senator mikulski was suggesting and what seems to be an opportunity here. >> of the president's decision on the posture in germany was that we would come down from four brigade combat teams to three. the uncertainty is in the army in terms of whether that fourth bct in 2015 and 2016 is simply disbanded, or whether in fact it comes back to the u.s. is the only milcon i am aware of in germany is the consolidation of command control communications, computers and intelligence in these badewiesbaden.

half of that has been spent. there is no money in the fiscal year 2012 budget but there is another 150 million between 2013 and 2016 so we will take another look at that piece of it. the decision was not just made by the department of defense but the president that we would come down by one in germany. >> the original proposal was two and. in the interim time, we believed and i will speak for myself along the lines of what you talked about in europe last week. the germans had fewer than 5000 troops in afghanistan. they have rules of engagement that are restrictive. and i would ask you to look at and perhaps work with the

incoming secretary to determine if it is in our best interest to have the place is ready at fort bliss for bct and with the lack of german effort, is it in our best interest to keep three bct's there rather than to which has been the previous decision. i certainly support having joint efforts and working with our partners but you yourself have said our partners are not stepping up to the plate as they should and i agree. i would just ask if in your last two weeks, you could look at this and could work with secretary leon panetta to determine if it is in our best interest with the lack of effort that the germans make in milcon and the lack of effort in

our nato alliance. and with the preparation that has already been made, 450 million millio$4 50 million$450. i would ask if you could elaborate on your view of nato and you said that some nato is better than no oneto. is there something that we could do practically beside encouraging our allies to be more of a player, an equal player that would make the nato alliance more effective? >> i think one thing where the congress could make a contribution is i know congress has a variety of parliamentary

exchanges with european legislatures and i think just voicing both in those exchanges but also publicly, the message that i delivered last week would be -- with the american people are becoming skeptical of this alliance if the u.s. has to bear three-quarters of the burden. >> thank you. thank you for your candid testimony. more importantly, for your service to our nation. you're arrested vision and ability to quickly implement your vision through others and -- your vision and ability to quickly implement your vision through others as a testament to you. and setting the stage for withdrawal. on behalf of the committee, we

wish you the best as you transition to the next phase. and we will have written questions submitted, if we may, because of the time limitation we're not able to go through the q&a so the subcommittee will reconvene on wednesday, june 22, 10:30 a.m. for the last hearing. we will close our books then. the subcommittee stands in recess.

>> we will have more from secretary gates and admiral mullen tomorrow. live coverage begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the c-span networks, providing coverage of politics and american history. it is available for you on television, radio come on line,

and on social media networking sites and find our content any time through c-span's video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus local content vehicle, bringing resources to your community. it is washington your way. the c-span network spread more -- now available in more than 1 million homes. >> congresswoman mack has proposed -- consumer advocates testified about the bill and tetheir privacy. this is one hour. >> if you could please take your seats? we have for witnesses who are engaged on the issue of cyber security, testifying are jason goldman for the u.s. chamber of

commerce, president and ceo of the business software alliance, stuart pratt, and mark rothenberg. good afternoon and think you for coming. you will be recognized for five minutes to help you keep track of the time, there is a time clock in front of you and green, red, and yellow. you know what that means. at this point we are going to recognize mr. goldman for five minutes and please remember to turn your microphone on and bring it close to your mouth. >> good afternoon. i am jason goldman of the u.s. chamber of commerce. the world's largest federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses.

on behalf of the chamber and its members, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the discussion draft of the act. we -- the safety act. wethis enhances productivity and improved efficiency. videt usage is directing -- is skyrocketing. there is no question that protecting sensitive customer information should be a priority for all businesses that collect and store this data. a customer deserves to be notified of a security breach has put them at risk of identity theft or harm. the chamber sponsors legislation that would implement standards

to protect against the unauthorized access to personal information about businesses, customers -- and notifying customers when significant risk may result from a security breach. the chamber urges policy makers to ensure that any legislation does not hinder innovation and beneficial uses of data. the chamber appreciates the willingness of the subcommittee to work with us on legislation aimed at accomplishing this goal. the chamber got this text of the safety net act recently so our comments may change as we passed three bills through the membership. in almost every state there is -- many of which differ from one and another in material ways. this not only makes compliance difficult but can create confusion for customers who receive notices from many sources. the chamber supports the state

information security laws to create a nationally uniform standard that would create regulatory certainty and minimize compliance cost for businesses. the chamber has advocated for a notice requirement that avoids the dangers of the vacation as discussed from the previous panel. customers may take actions that are not warranted and may waste their time. customers may be falsely told and not take proper action when the risk is justified. the chamber is pleased that the bill recognizes the notification should be based on risk of harm, not on the fact that the breach occurred. the chamber grays that notification of breach is not necessary where the data has been rendered unusable or indecipherable by different members of -- different types of access. the chamber it recommends --

that would trigger notification. the chamber agrees that consumers should be notified after the occurrence of a bridge but given the complexity of dealing with the bridge, we recommend the draft be modified to allow companies time to notify consumers rather than a specific time frame. to catch cyber criminals and insure the safety of our nation, the chamber supports the revisions of the draft bill permitting delay of notification for law enforcement for national security purposes. the chamber recommended inclusion of language in the bill that identifies which specific agencies would trigger that exception or would be able to enact that exemption. regarding liability, the chamber is concerned about the application of the daily fine.

the chamber appreciates the revisions on the bill. the chamber is concerned about enabling state attorneys general to post a regime that makes compliance difficult. the draft bill should [unintelligible] to utilize private outside contingency attorneys to enforce or litigate claims on behalf of their constituents. also the chamber appreciates the provision in the act that says the ftc should implement it in a technical matter and the chamber does appreciate the inclusion of the prohibition of the no prior right of action. thank you and i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you.

>> members, the business software alliance strongly supports the enactment of a data security and that a breach notification law. we have believed that is important to build trust and confidence in the digital economy. this is the fourth congress to consider a better bridge legislation. we're grateful for the opportunity we have had to work with the members of this committee to events of bill. the time to act is now. the need is clear as are the solutions. we endorse the key elements of the safe id act that are before us today. we support requiring organizations that hold sensitive personal information to implement a reasonable security procedures and the draft bill takes into account an organization's size, the scope of activities, and the costs

involved. we support reading incentive to adopt strong security measures. the bill will promote the use of technologies such as encryption, which rendered data unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable, to thieves of the managed to steal it. we support an approach that avoids unnecessary, alarming, or confusing concerns and the bill accomplishes that by only requiring notification if there is a risk of identity theft, fraud, or unlawful activity. finally, we support the bills establishment of a uniform national from work with federal enforcement, preempting today's patchwork of state laws. we hear about new data breaches almost daily. one group has recorded more than 2500 of them since 2005 involving more than 530 million individual records. these records include data that

are useful to identify individuals and being exploited by thieves such as social security, a credit card, or driver's license numbers. surveys indicate these bridges are causing consumers to question the security of on-line transactions and that is especially troubling because we're in the middle of an exciting new wave of innovation with the emergence of cloud computing. cloud computing offers tremendous opportunities for economic growth and efficiency. it allows businesses and organizations to reinvent the their back office operations and will give users access to their data and services from any device whether they are at home, the office, or on the road. we cannot allow breaches to erode confidence in the cloud environment or the internet economy. members have been working hard to protect data.

we are leaders in providing security solutions and reducing vulnerability is and protecting the integrity of their technologies. we are developing solutions that are employed by businesses and consumers to defend against the evolving and very real threats. bsa has led the fight against the use of illegal software not only because it drains revenues from american companies, but also because of pirated software commonly includes malicious computer codes that hackers and other criminals used to steal data. importantly, members are at the forefront of the cloud revolution which creates new opportunities to better store data behind strong security walls. as this committee understands, congress also has a responsibility. in the absence of a national law, states have enacted their

own data breach notification requirements. unfortunately, this has resulted in inconsistency that is on will be for business and for consumers. we need a uniform national framework that better protects consumers in -- and also as this bill does, promotes effective security measures. i testified before this committee two years ago about the need for a national data breech lock. since then, another 250 million sensitive records have been breached. maddened chairman, i commend you and your colleagues for drafting this -- madam chairman, i commend you and your colleagues for drafting this bill. look forward to working with you and members of this committee to make that a reality. thank you. >> thank you. mr. pratt, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.

madam chairman -- is it working? >> the people in the back care of they hear well. >> we appreciate the opportunity to testify today. for more than a decade cdi supported the creation of a federal standard for notification of consumers were there is a significant risk of identity theft. we applaud the focus of this hearing, your committee's leadership is key to finding the path forward. we approach -- support the approach to have taken to build a much-needed consensus. it is the right step to take. you have asked us to comment on the discussion draft known as they sifted act. first, cdi is incurs. risks today there are addressed

with to keep killers. sensitive personal data must be secured. the draft proposal part really empowers the federal trade commission to write skill level regulations much has bank regulators have done. member support this approach. consumers must be notified if information is lost or stolen. where there is a significant threat of harm. within these pillars are many provisions which are well thought out and deserve to be highlighted. the discussion draft establish a strong incentives for u.s. businesses to adopt strategies to reduce risks by rendering data unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable. they are properly technology- neutral and will spur innovation in the design of systems that will protect data about consumers. the draft properly includes a risk-based trigger for determining when a notice must be sent which ensures that we

receive relevant and timely notices rather than a deluge of notices for which we need to sift to find one that is meaningful. the draft urges the notification of consumers and acknowledges the need for law enforcement to engage with the private-sector and to delay such notices but not to allow delays that are not -- that are too long. we're in this position to be successful in securing personal information. we encourage the committee to adopt a similar standard with regard to persons who are already held accountable.

to this end we applaud the inclusion of section 6 as the committee refines the discussion draft. we thank you for the inclusion of language that makes it clear that the person who experienced the breach and is notifying consumers is the one who pays for the credit reports. for the sake of consumers, rick will request the bill be remande-- wheat request the bile amended so our members can prepare the spike in volume. our members discovered that notices had been correct toll- free numbers listed. the terms of -- in terms of definitions, we are glad that

section 57 a establishes definitions. that all understand the type of data that must be protected. 7b excludes public records. we are concerned with 75 c which allows the ftc to alter the definition. we believe the definition should be set by congress. let me congratulate you on a strong draft that is unencumbered by ancillary issues. we look forward to supporting your efforts to protect information. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. [no audio]

[inaudible] >> millions of consumers, by customers [unintelligible] credit card information improperly access. 100 million members of the playstation network had information improperly access. these problems are going to get worse. we are moving more data from our devices into the club where they can be more easily accessed by others. you're going to hear more about security breaches and also you're going to learn that the attacks are becoming more sophisticated. not only do we have to contend with phishing, we have to contend with spear phishing. to use their address that makes

possible identity theft. given the fact the house had passed a strong measure, the problems are getting worse and likely to continue to do so. i would have started there and try to figure how to improve the bill and i wanted to commend you for incorporating the data minimization provision in the draft bill. this is an important safeguard that not only limits the risk at the outset by telling companies, think if you need to have social security numbers on health club members for example. if you lose control of that information, you have created a risk so you reduce the risk at the outset but in the circumstances where the information is improperly access, there is less exposure to customers so that is an important safeguard and i am glad to see that incorporated in the draft measure that you circulated as well as the effort to reduce the time period for

notification. what we learned based on the sony experience is it is not surprising these companies are reluctant to notify customers when they have a problem and that is why legislation is important for companies to tell customers there is a problem and you will need to act on this information. the fact to have lamented that time is important. i made some additional suggestions and i will try to highlight the key points about questions that have been raised by members during the earlier part of this hearing with commissioner ramirez. i noticed the question had been asked, why should we have a public information requirement if the data is already out there? can we put that in a separate category and that is obvious. there is a difference between someone breaking into a database to get someone's home address and someone finding a home

address in a publicly accessible file and the reason is there is intent behind the brick and to go after the person whose home address has been obtained and the fact it might be accessible summer isles should hardly make people feel good about the fact it can be categorized as public information. i would take away the exception that says that some how companies get a free pass if it is information that can be obtained some rules, they do not have to worry about people breaking in to get access to a. informationdress and t makes obvious the problem. it is a difficult problem. it comes up in almost every privacy bill. a very good starting point to say simply personally identifiable information is information that could identify or identifies a person and includes by way of illustration, including but not limited to the

provisions to have so it is a social security number and it is a person's name, it is a home address, but it could be an ip address. the fixed internet address associated with their laptop or mobile device that very well could be personally identifiable. their facebook user id could also be personally identifiable information. that is what contributed to one of the concerns about access to facebook based information. on this question of pre-emption, i understand 1 my colleagues would favor a national standards. it is sensible from their perspective but i would urge you to look very closely at some of these strong state measures that would be effectively over written if a weak federal standard is established. those bills are important and even in states like california where they thought they had it right the first time on financial data, they had to deal with medical breach notification

as well. thank you. >> thank you and i apologize i did not pronounce your name correctly. mr. rotenberg. i will try this myself and recognize myself for the first five minutes with a yes or no required at of each of you and go down the line starting with mr. goldman and around and around. yes or no, mr. goldman, is the existence of so many state standards an impediment to fast consumer notification? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> should not be. >> is preemption necessary to speed up consumer notification? >> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> what a single federal standard lessen the risk of over-notification and decrease the number of unnecessary notices sent every year? >> yes. >> yes. >> no.

>> do you think consumers can become desensitized to risk if they received any notification? >> yes. >> is there a problem with over- notification that can affect consumers even if it is erring on the side of caution? >> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> is wading through forty plus standards [unintelligible] >> should companies keep sensitive information such as credit-card numbers or dates of birth in perpetuity if they no longer needed? >> it depends is not an answer. no.

>> no. >> no. >> should every day there breach trigger a notice to consumers? >> no. >> no. >> yes. >> should information made available by federal, state, or local governments be considered personal information? >> no. >> i am not taking a position. >> no. >> yes. >> should the ftc be allowed to modify the definition of pii? >> yes. >> yes. >> should governments -- of other agencies also be subject to ftc enforcement under the draft? >> no. >> no. >> yes. >> should all entities regardless of their size or the

scope of personal data base subject to the same requirement rules for section 2 of this legislation? >> no. >> we are not taking a position. >> no. >> no. >> do you believe the collection and use of data is a data security issue? >> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> yes. >> do you think encrypted data that is breached require notification? >> no. >> no. >> yes. >> this should state attorneys general have the ability to enforce this law? >> no. >> yes. >> new position. >> yes. >> is your organization of nonprofit organization? >> yes. >> yes. >> is. >> yes. >> is your organization

maintaining information that would be covered by this bill? >> i do not know. >> for our employees. >> yes. >> yes. >> do you agree with the proposal to allow the fcc to regulate in this area? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> is. >> do you believe political campaigns should be covered as well? >> no comment. >> reconsider it. >> yes. >> thank you. that went rather well. mr. goldman from what you suggest changing the time frame from to 48 hours to reasonable time frame to guard against consumer overreaction. how do we risk over-notification ? >> we are extremely concerned and it depends on what kind of breach. this is what i mentioned. if you have an employees steal

information for another employee, that is a one-on-one breach so does that trigger the mechanism? it is -- depends on the case by case basis. >> thank you. mr. rotenberg, you recommended pii.ngress tdefine >> as an industry that deals with a lot of that information and as an industry that ensures that information, we're comfortable with the structure you have in place. we think it encompasses the types of data that exposes consumers to a degree of risk and even the examples that were given, we would disagree that those are necessarily new and

different that might be accounted for so we stand by the position. we believe that congress should work out its definition and give businesses a stable marketplace in which to compete and build the products and services. >> thank you. my time is expired. i recognize mr. butterfield for five minutes. >> thank you. information brokers possess huge stores of data. these brokers invest time and money to uncover personal details and without knowledge or consent, they sell this information to the highest bidder. it appears that american consumers have no free-market method of showing disapproval. if they feel their personal information is being misused or to correct any inaccuracies in the profile. it is in situations like these

were becomes pertinent to enact laws that empower consumers, giving them the tools they need to control their personal data. do you believe that consumers should be able to access the information that brokers hold about them upon their request? >> i do. i do so for precisely the reason that you have explained which is that there is no one-to-one relationship between the consumer and information broker. that is third party which means the consumer does not know what information they would have. >> who owns the data? >> the broker would claim that they do. what they do with the data has an enormous impact on the individual. it can determine employment, it can determine whether they get an apartment, a federal contract, a range of activity in the u.s. is deeply impacted by the information that brokers have about us and make available to others. >> do believe consumers should

be able to dispute inaccurate information that brokers hold? >> i do. the information brokers have become the equivalent of the reporting agency and congress figured out the credit reporting agencies were holding financial reports of consumers that impacted their abilities to get loans and start businesses. information brokers are playing a similar role. individuals should have the right to dispute what is in the record. >> h.r. 2221 that was approved, which the senate failed to act contained requirements on how broker should interact with consumers by seeking to access their personal information or resolve a dispute about its accuracy or misused. i know of complying with these requirements, brokers were given an alternative procedure that they could follow. providing individuals with the option to completely opt out of

having their personal info used for marketing purposes. neither the special requirements on information brokers nor the alternative opt out procedures are included in the republican discussion draft as we can discern. in the absence of the federal law mandating simple opt out procedures, brokers have generally not provided them. however in a perverse turn, the did a broker -- did a broker u.s. surgeon corporate it tried to fill the gap by saying it would lock their record so that others could not see them or buy them. ftc found this promise was false. the commission reached a settlement where the company agreed to refund all fees charged and avoid misrepresentation in the future. do you believe that it is currently too difficult for consumers to opt out of information broker databases?

>> i do. i think this is an area where there needs to be legislative safeguards. >> can you discuss how difficult it is to remove once information from a broker data base compiled -- compared to retailer? >> the broker business model relies on the collection of detailed information about consumers without their knowledge. it is not the consumers providing the information. that information gains commercial value as it is shared with more third parties. the consumer has no ability to interact, to limit those transactions. the simple answer is it is very difficult for consumers to play a meaningful role with what brokers do with information about them. >> let me throw it over to the chairman and field. >> i appreciate that. i want to reiterate we are looking at privacy and to the degree we can separate the

privacy debate from the data breach debate. they might be different so i wanted to draw that out. >> that is an important distinction and i thank the chairman for making that comment. my time has expired. i yield back. >> thank you. recognizes mr. stern's. >> the tillman talked about this 48 our brick and you indicated -- chairwoman talked about this 48 our breach and you indicated a preference for a casesable -- oare there where we could move to 96 or 72 where you would feel more comfortable, or is it a fundamental idea that every

company is different, one is small and large, the situation is different so to put a mandate of 48 hours as a timeframe might not be applicable so maybe you want to explore that. >> you are talking it could take a few days to get to the bottom so that is where we are leery of putting a time frame on it. h.r. 2221, including a 60 day time frame, we have not vetted that. we are concerned about making sure that businesses cannot react without having that time frame guide their actions. >> can you give me a specific

example from one of your members where a 48 hour time frame would be harmful or difficult to accomplish? >> i think from reading the press reports, one of the cases that occurred, the company said credit card data was compromised and it was not. it >> it took them time to figure it out. >> in the meantime they told customers their data was compromised. you have customers canceling their credit cards and going through the inconvenience and having to get new ones and it is an inconvenience. you have to contact the vendors and it gets complicated. i like to make sure that i have to. >> when you use the language,

reasonable time, that gives them the flexibility. >> i would say so. >> based on what mr. goldman said, is there a possible there are situations that if they go out and scare these members, they start canceling their credit cards and when they do the investigation, there was not a breach, is that a good example, or do you think -- >> not only do i stand by the 48 hour rule, i disagree with the characterization of your first witness. i know a fair amount of what happened in the citigroup breach. it was credit-card information, account holder and the account number information. it was not the security code and it was not the expiration number and the conclusion was drawn that the risk was somewhat less

than they had thought but the risk was very real. >> would you also agree with mr. goldman that every company is different and sometimes this breach when they're going to look at tens of thousands, it is possible the cannot do it in 48 hours, there might be some idea, there might be reasonable time? >> there is a burden when they have to notify customers and they are reluctant to. there is a problem and i do not think we can diminish the problem. >> also the bill -- it talks about personal identifiable information and we have some questions on that. is there any of you concerned about the definition of personal

identifiable information? can a company adequately understand that definition so that they can conclude when it comes to data minimization, what they should take out? my question is, mr. goldman, are you concerned about the ftc and how they interpret these terms and what impact the legislation would have for dealing with data minimization? >> yes. we're concerned about the ability of the ftc to expand the definition of pii. we are comfortable with the definition in the bill and we're worried about the inclusion of -- we worry about the inclusion of your user name so we're worried about their expansion, the possibility of expansion authority. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes mr. rush. >> thank you. you said in your testimony and i

am paraphrasing. security breach notification should be required in instances where there is reasonable risk of identity theft. you suggest that these limits are needed to reduce excess of notifications which might lead to anxiety and panic. phishing and spear phishing -- it is resulting in allowing breaches. should the scale of the breach be a factor in determining if consumers receive immediate notification? >> a good question.

we believe that there should notification triggered when there is a significant risk of harm. we think there are important provisions in the bill are the ones that encourage the industry to adopt security measures using encryption or other technologies that would render the information indecipherable or unreadable. that is at the end of the day, the most important safeguard because that when it is effective, if that information is obtained but the criminal cannot do anything with that information, we believe that you should not have to notify consumers because it is that excess of notification we believe races consumers' concerns unnecessarily and what the markets should be doing is driving people to store data in

a readable format so when breaches occur and they will, the criminal cannot do anything with that data. >> we agree that and this is true of your bill. the incentive to render the data unusable is one of the most critical provisions of the current draft of the bill that you had passed last year. it is one that we focus on as an industry every day. it is the one we take most seriously because the strong incentive is not to notify people you have lost data, whether it is a criminal act or some other failing but to protect it in the first place. find the best technology when the data is at rest or in transmission, that is critical. >> mr. pratt, when notice is given -- say your members who

do not meet the definition [unintelligible] >> i am not saying it has to be concurrent. when a call centers and letter goes out, we have to make sure we have the right staff and the pipes open, even the mail processing access. we understand what our normal pattern is but a very large did a breach creates ever and patterns which create spikes of activity. we want to serve the consumer and ensure the get the credit report they want or ensure the telephone is picked up on time which is what they expect. that is the reason we're asking. >> can any of the other

witnesses conceive how such a model might impede the ftc's ability to investigate and in force under the law? -- enforce under the law? la can you say why the definition is that too narrow of personal identification? >> i think the definition i proposed followed with examples which are included in the bill as common sense. we think of personal information as information that could identify them or identifies them. i know based on some of the recent experiences with data breaches that ip address poses a risk because it could be

identifiable. facebook user id posed a risk because it was user identifiable. the list helps people understand but if the list is limited, we have a problem. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i would like to welcome the witnesses and i appreciate your perspectives on an issue that has become more pervasive. just as mr. rotenberg stated. what is the view of the [unintelligible] is this inadequate? >> we did not take a position but we have supported carveouts so there is not duplicate of laws. that is my answer. >> thank you. as drafted, the legislation

stands -- states risk is a reasonable risk of harm. the ftc commissioner stated that the ftc thought that reasonable risk was the right standard because erring on the side of notification override some sort of desensitization of the public. could you elaborate on why the chamber believes consumers would be better off if the standard word change to significant risk of harm? >> the chamber does support the risk standard because we worried about two possibilities. customers are over-notified and when a real risk occurs, they do not take any action or they get a notice and react immediately so they canceled their credit cards. both extremes. we prefer to have a significant risk standard. >> i have a question for the

witnesses and we will start off with you, mr. rotenberg. if you suffer from a bridge, how what the act changed their response and how what it help consumers avoid identity theft? >> we do not have member companies but i will say that many of the elements that are in the bill, we have tried to follow over the years the goal of data minimization. we think it is a good way to protect people and we have for a number of years taken steps to limit the amount of personal information we collect. we collect information we need to provide the services we provide but we did not collect excess of information. >> our members are regulated by on the data breach notification side by the 47 or 48 state statute that is out there today. it would give us an easier route to compliance but we would be

notify consumers as we do today under the state statutes and almost all of our members are financial institutes. we are already complying with a data security regime which is called a safeguards rule. for most of our members it would not be a remarkable change. even where our members have data, we build enterprise- wide data security. for ann't speak individual company but all of our companies are involved in trying to build greater security into their products and companies who bring tools to businesses and services to support their and vermin. we recognize that they are ones that we would be subject to and our members are completely welcoming this legislation with

some fine tuning we would like to see but it is important to act and important to act this year. >> thank you. >> with the standard it would make it easier for companies to comply versus the 46 or 47 state rules. >> we may not be hitting the bulova we are hitting that target. eye, but we are hitting the target. do your company is conducting assessments and how what this impact your company's ability and members to resolve the security breach? >> i will take a pass. >> i cannot speak specifically because those assessments would be dictated by the state laws that are out there which dictate

different standards. that is one of the reason why a national standard would be helpful in terms of assessing a did a breach risk. if i could take a moment to speak to the glb exception, it is a good idea and our members are happy to live under a new regime. if our members are regulated by the act, we are asking we operate in tandem, the same provision under glb. i do not have overlapping requirements for two different standards and for small businesses, that is important because they do not have a general counsel on staff to revise them and that is why that is important. >> our members oftentimes provide technologies that are used to prevent breaches, we have a lot of experience in helping identify breaches when they occur and we know through that the nature of the bridge

may differ. the amount of time may differ and we support the provisions of the bill that are flexible depending on the nature of the breach and the size of the enterprise. >> we need to move on. we are when it over. >> that was a yield back time. i yield back my time. >> i appreciate that. i am happy to recognize you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

the committee will come to order. we exist to cure two fundamental principles. first, americans have the right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent. and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdog to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. the mission of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms is to protect our community from

violent criminals, criminal organization, and the illegal use and trafficking of firearms. since the gun control act of 1968, the atf has been organized as a unique law enforcement agency that americans could trust to reduce the illegal transfer of guns into the hands of criminals. today's hearing concerns a breach of that trust that has left countless innocent, mexican citizens and at least one federal border patrol agent dead. in 2009, the atf began allowing straw purchasers to walk guns into mexico. believing that this initiative would help them track the use of firearms by higher ups within the mexican drug cartel, guns -- excuse me, guns instead were being seized and allowed to cross the mexican border without

the knowledge of the mexican government. this effort failed. over strong objection of the atf field agents, the program continued, and st. patrickappro 2,000 ak-47s and rifles and others and 10,000 or more rounds of live ammunition went into the arsenals of the mexican drug lords. despite these strong objections by field agents, operation fast and furious continued. and not only did it continue, but those at the highest level of atf showed great interest in the program. a document displayed on the screen now shows that two of the most senior leaders in atf,

acting director and active deputy director. the document shows that both were keenly interested in the case and updates. a second document shows deputy assistant director for field operations william mcmahon was so excited about fast and furious that he received special briefing on the program in phoenix scheduled a mere 45 minutes after his plane landed. a third and perhaps the most disturbing document indicates that acting director nelson was very much in the weeds with operation fast and furious. after a detailed briefing on the program at the atf field division, acting director nelson had a plethora of follow-up questions that required additional research to answer it. and as documents indicate, mr.

nelson was interested even in receiving the ip address for hidden cameras located inside cooperating gun shops. with this information, acting director nelson was able to sit at his desk in washington and himself watch a live feed of buyers entering the gun stores and purchasing dozens of ak-47 variants. earlier this month, the mexican government reported that more than 34,000 lives have been lost in the 4 1/2 years. and scores of others remain missing. last year, 111 u.s. citizens were killed in mexico. which has been the most violent year in the drug war's history, according to the u.s. state department. when senator chuck grassley, who we welcome here today, and i first learned about operation fast and furious earlier this

year, we were both shocked that such a brutal and reckless and blatantly reckless program had ever been conceived, authorized, or executed by federal law enforcement. candidly, at first, i believe that it had to be as it was being alleged. an operation that was a few loose cannons and could not have possibly been properly briefed. last night, senator grassley and i released a joint report from the investigation entitled "operation fast and furious: accounts of the atf agents." after these accounts, after the many depositions that have been taken, the witnesses that have come forward, the whistle blowers, if you will, it is now clear this was not rogues at a local level, just the opposite. what we find is that people at the local level overwhelmingly objected to this program but were assured that it was

approved at the highest level. today we will hear from the family of agent terry about how fast and furious devastated their lives. and we will hear from atf agents who saw the risk, opposed the program, and have come forward to tell the american people what happened. the american people have a right to know the facts about operation fast and furious. and congress has a responsibility to find and reveal those facts. thus far, more than 30 democratic house members have joined senator grassley and myself in calls for the truth. i hope this will continue to be a bipartisan start. getting the truth out in more timely fashion, understand how it happened, and hopefully work

together with senator grassley and this committee to ensure it never happens again, that includes holding those whose judgment was so poor accountable. and with that, i recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing. i'd like to start by saying a few words directly to the members of the family who are here today. over the past week, my family suffered a horrific tragedy that in some ways is similar to your own. nobody can really know how that feels until they go through it themselves. on the one hand, you want the criminals who did this to be brought to justice as fast as possible. you want them punished for what they did, for who they took from you. on the other hand, that's after the fact. it simply will not bring them back. so, you also want answers. you want to know whether something could have been done

to prevent their death. you want to prevent it from happening in the future. i want to help as much as i can. uh you also deserve straightforward answers from your government. working together we can and must achieve both of these goals. now let me welcome senator grassley. your reputation transcends party lines. you said something in your statement, in your written statement that i totally agree with and i want to reiterate. speaking of the atf officers

their testimonies would be unfair, unwise and unlawful. and i am here to say i've always taken that position. and i share that view with you and i will work with you to make sure that does not happen. and i'm sure it won't. it is not easy to testify in front of congress under normal circumstances, but it is even more difficult when you are testifying about allegations involving your own agency. nevertheless, i know you are here today because you want to improve this process. finally, let me welcome mr. weisch from the justice department. this will not be an easy hearing for you either. but i know you too are here because you want to improve this process. we look forward to talking with you about ways we can meet both the department's obligations for the prosecution and the committee's obligations for oversight. we thank each and every one of you for your service to the country.

we will have tough questions today, but you all deserve our courtesy and respect. on the substance of today's hearing, the allegations that have been made are very troubling. and new information we have obtained raises additional concerns about the role of various actors involved in these incidents. based on the interviews conducted by the committee so far and the documents we have reviewed to date, i have two concerns that i would like to explore. first, we will hear testimony that surveillance of suspected straw purchasers was discontinued repeatedly, seemingly for no reason. so agents could return to gun stores to start over with new suspects. the phoenix group hailing this investigation was tiny, with only 3 to 7 atf agents. although other offices and agencies were involved, the allegation is that these scarce resources were not used appropriately. second, we will hear testimony

that specific individuals in the u.s. attorneys office in phoenix refused to prosecute legitimate and promising gun cases invol involving straw purchasers. this gives me great concern. it is not clear whether this reluctance was based on negative court decisions, inadequate resources, or other issues. but one thing is clear, the allegations relating to this particular office spans several years and several administrations. i want to make two additional points about today's hearing. this committee's investigation are not about finding the badge. he said and i quote, this is not a discovery process of what happened. we know what happened. with all due respect, i strongly disagree. we do not know all the facts.

no examination of this issue will be complete without examining our nation's gun laws, which allowed assault weapons to flood into mexico every year. including 50 caliber sniper rifles, multiple ak variants, and scores of others, some of them landing in neighborhoods like mine, the one i represent in baltimore. when calderon represented congress in may, he pleaded for us to stop fueling a full-scale drug war with military-grade assault weapons. in order to explore these issues further today, i'm exercising my right under the rules, mr. chairman, for the house of hearings with several witnesses who will testify in great detail. i did not think it was necessary to call these witnesses for today's hearing, but i will work with the chairman on scheduling these hearings in the near future. finally, let me say this, atf special agent bacelli says

something in his statement we all need to take note of, mr. chairman. he said these words. as a career law enforcement officer who has had to investigate the deaths of police officers, children, and others at the hands of armed criminals, i was and continue to be horrified. and this is the piece i want us to concentrate on. i believe that these firearms will continue to turn up at crime scenes on both sides of the border. for years to come. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now -- oh, members may have seven days to submit opening statements and materials for the record. we now recognize our first panel. the distinguished senator charles grassley is the ranking member of the senate committee on judiciary. i had an opportunity to work with the senator on patent issues and many other issues of law enforcement. but today, the senator is here to speak about a joint

investigation that has spanned many months and has ultimately consumed a great deal of the senator's personal time and attention. and i thank you for being here. your entire written statement will be placed in the record, and you're recognized. >> these important hearings, and for the great work that you and your staff have done in your constitutional responsibility of oversight. i'm grateful to agent brian terry's family for being here today and wish to express my sympathy for their loss, i hope that we can get the terry family the answers that they deserve. i also want to thank the brave people for testifying from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. these federal agents. i know that they're here to tell

the unvarnished truth. i also know that that can be very tough. since they still work for the atf. these agents already risk their lives, they shouldn't have to risk their lives, as well. and continuing to highlight what congressman cummings highlighted from my statement. any attempt to retaliate against them for their testimony today would be unfair, unwise, and unlawful. and let me add to what congressman cummings said and it'll be a personal affront to the senator. when i became ranking member of the judiciary committee in january, this was the first oversight issue to land on my desk. several other senators' offices contacted my office to pass along these allegations about an atf case called operation fast and furious. at first, the allegation sounded too shocking to believe, but sadly, they turned out to be

true. atf is supposed to stop criminals from trafficking guns to mexican drug cartels or i guess any place else. instead, the atf made it easier for alleged cartel middle men to get weapons from u.s. gun dealers. agents were actually ordered to stand by and watch these middle men, these straw purchasers buy hundreds upon hundreds of weapons. agents warned that inaction could lead to tragedy, but management didn't want to listen. we will hear from some of those agents today and hear from their point of view. inaction would be bad enough. but atf went even further. atf encouraged gun dealers to sell to straw buyers.

e-mails prove that at least one dealer worried prophetically about that risk. he wrote to atf about his concerns that a border patrol agent mind end up facing the wrong end of one of those weapons. atf supervisors told the dealer don't worry. so the agent said it was a bad idea, and the gun dealers said it was a bad idea. who thought it was a good idea? why did this happen? congress deserves answers to these questions. the president said it didn't authorize it, that he didn't authorize it, and that the attorney general didn't authorize it. they have both admitted that "a serious mistake may have been made." there are a lot of questions, and a lot of investigating to do. but one thing has become clear already.

this was no mistake. it was a conscious decision by senior officials. it was written down. it was briefed all the way up to washington, d.c. according to an internal briefing paper, operation fast and furious was intentionally designed to "allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place." why would the atf do such a thing? well, the next line in the brief paper tells us. it was, "to further the investigation and allow for the identification of an additional co-conspirators." so very clearly, that was the goal. the purpose of allowing straw buyers to keep buying was to find out who else might be working with them.

who else might be in their network of gun traffickers. of course, that assumes that they're part of a big, sophisticated network. that kind of assumption can cause one to start with a conclusion and then work backward looking for the facts that fit the case. until you figure out that you've got the cart before the horse, you're probably not going to get anywhere. professor of criminology recently published an article in the "wall street journal" called "the myth of big time gun trafficking." professor kleck said according to his study atf handles only about 15 operations each year that involve more than 250 guns.

according to his study, a typical trafficking operation involves fewer than 12 guns. so why would the atf make it a priority to identify large networks of traffickers? and again, why would senior leadership decide to explicitly elevate that goal above atf's traditional work of seizing weapons that were illegally purchased? on october 26th, 2009, e-mails indicate that there was a meeting of senior law enforcement officials at our justice department. it appears to have included the heads of every law enforcement component of the department, including directors of the fbi, the dea and the atf. it also included the u.s.

attorneys for all the southwest border states, the director of the organized crime drug enforcement task force, and the chairman of theattorney general advisory committee. sounds like a pretty big, important meeting, doesn't it? on the agenda at the meeting was a document describing the department's strategy for combatting mexican cartels. in a section called "attacking the southbound flow of firearms" it says, and i quote from the document, "merely seizing firearms through interdiction will not stop firearms trafficking to mexico. we must identify, investigate, and eliminate the sources of illegally trafficked firearms and the networks that transport them." well, the message in that document's pretty clear, isn't

it? trying to identify networks of traffickers is more important than seizing weapons. this document was transmitted to the head of the phoenix field division on october the 27th, 2009. four days later, the phoenix field division began investigate ing suspicion of a gun trafficking ring. 10 days after that, petino was assigned his own case number. in the first 24 days that the atf was on to him, pitino bought 34 guns from dealers cooperating in the atf. that's nearly three times more than the typical gun trafficking operation according to the study in the "wall street journal" that i just mentioned. but, that was just the beginning. since the dealers were

cooperating, atf received notices of each purchase right away. analysts enter the serial numbers into atf's suspect gun data base, usually within days of the purchase. on november 20th, one of the 34 guns bought turned up in mexico just 14 days after he bought it in phoenix. atf learned of the recovery through a hit in a suspect gun data base on november the 24th. that same day, petino brought a deal into a cooperating gun dealer and bought five more guns. atf had realtime notice from the dealer. but they arrived too late. over the next six weeks, he

bought 13 guns at dealers cooperating with the atf. the dealers notified the atf of each purchase right away. analysts entered the serial numbers in the atf data base usually within about two days of purchase. yet, atf did nothing to deter or interrupt the straw purchasers. avila went back to cooperating dealer and purchased three more ak-47 type weapons. atf simply put the serial numbers in its data base. still, atf did nothing to stop avila and petino. 11 months later, two of those three rifles were recovered at the scene of agent terry's murder. during those 11 months, avila purchased another 34 arms, but petino purchased 539.

again, cooperating gun dealers notified atf of each and every purchase. it usually took about five days to enter the serial numbers into the atf data base. but atf often had realtime or even advance notice of the purchases from the dealers. atf even specifically approved of particular transactions. i'll give you an example. in august 2010, a gun dealer cooperating with the atf asked for guidance. petino wanted 20 more weapons, but the dealer only had four in stock. the dealer told atf that if he were to sell the guns, he would have to "obtain the additional 16 specifically for this purpose." an atf supervisor wrote back, "our guidance is that we would like you to go through with mr.

petino's request and order additional firearms." at this point, atf already knew that he had bought 673 guns from cooperating dealers and that many had already been recovered at crime scenes. i want to be clear. that we don't know for sure whether this particular order was actually filled for these additional 16 guns. however, these new e-mails support what agents and dealers have been telling us for many months. according to them, dealers identified atf when any of the straw purchasers bought guns either before, during, or at least shortly after the sale. we don't know what the exact totals are, but we know that the suspect gun data base had at least 1,880 guns related to this case. at least 30 of them were

high-power 50 caliber rifles. the straw purchasers bought 212 guns in just six days, december 2009. 70% of all guns in the data base were bought by just five straw purchasers. if agents had been allowed to stop, just those five buyers, most of the guns in this case would not have fallen into the wrong hands. finally, i want to say something about the politics of gun control. this investigation is not about politics, it's about getting the facts. that's what constitutional responsibility of oversight's all about. that's our checks and balances with government. no matter what side of that issue you're on, the facts here should be disturbing. there'll be plenty of time for both sides to argue about policy implications of all this at some

point. but i hope that we can do that at another day. today is all about these agents not being allowed to do their job. today is about the terry family and their search for the truth. too often we want to make everything about politics. we pick sides and only listen to what we want to hear. at least for today, let's just listen to these agents. and let's just listen to this family and hear what they have to say. let's hear their stories and hear it loud and clearly. let's then work together to get answers for this family and other families who may have suffered. it's time to get to the truth and hold our government accountable. the public's business ought to be public. the public's right to know. and with the public's right to

know comes that accountability. that's the checks and balances of our government, and that's what congressional oversight is all about. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. thank you for taking so much time out of your busy schedule to testify here today. what we set up for the next panel will take a short recess.

the hearing will come to order, please. we'll now recoize our next panel of witnesses. mrs. josephine terry, the mother of the late border patrol agent brian terry. ms. michelle terry is the sister of the late border patrol agent brian terry.

the cousin of brian terry. the committee would also like to recognize other members of agent terry's family, including his father, kent terry, who was unable to be he today. his stepmother carolyn terry, his older brother kent terry jr., and his younger sister kelly terry willis. our thoughts today are with agent terry and his entire family as they continue to mourn the untimely passing of their loved one. our remaining witnesses on the second panel are mr. john doddson, special agent in the phoenix division of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. excuse me. mr. bolindo, lee as he's known is a special agent in the bureau

of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. and mr. peter porcelli is the supervisor of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. ladies and gentlemen, pursuant to the rules of our committee, all witnesses are to be sworn in order to testify. would you please rise to take the oath? and raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. please be seated. in order to allow time, particularly with such a large panel, your entire written statement and any inclusive material you want to have put in the record will be placed in the reco. so feel free to summarize, try

to stay within five minutes. for the field agents, we will hold you cler tot, mother and sister, not so much. we'll start with mr. hyer, you're recognized for five minutes. >> good morning, chairman. ranking member cummings, and other members of the committee, my name is robert hyer, i am the cousin of slain border patrol agent brian a. terry. as you know, i'm joined on the panel this morning with brian's mother josephine and his older sister michelle. they have asked me to give this opening statement on behalf of the entire terry family. it was just ten days before christmas last year when our

family received the devastating news. brian had been shot and killed while engaged in a fire fight with a group of individuals seeking to do harm to american citizens and others. we knew that brian faced imminent danger on a daily basis as a part of his chosen career. but we also knew that he and his unit were highly trained and equipped with the st weapons this country could provide to the fighting minnesota and women. they were confident in overcoming any threat they may face in the section of desert they patrolled. he and his team prided themselves as being the tip of the spear that defended this country and its borders. the telephone call came in the middle of the night. i know this type of horrible notification has been received many times during the past ten

years by families of our military sons and daughters as the united states has fought wars iboth iraq and afghanistan. after all, brian had taken an oath to defend this country from all terrorist threats. what makes brian's death so shocking to his family is that he did not die in a foreign battlefield. he was killed in the line of duty as a u.s. border patrol agent. he died not in iraq or afghanistan, but in the desert outside of arizona. some 18 miles inside of the u.s./mexican border. his killers were not taliban insurgents or al qaeda fighters, but a small group of mexican drug cartel bandits heavily armed with ak-47 assault rifles.

the rifles and the ammunition that they carried in those weapons were designed to do one thing anthat was to kill. ian was an amazing man. and i say that not just because he was family. many people thought he was almost superhuman. after his death, we visited his former duty stations in arizona. each time we've met one of his fellow agents, they spoke of how impressed they were with him. he was what we expect in our brothers and sons. strong, competitive, handsome, courageous, funny, and incredibly patriotic american. some of his co-workers even had bestowed him with a nickname of

superman. brian was very proud to serve as a federal agent. he had joinedhe united states marine corps right after high school. he went on to collegend earned a bachelor of science degree in criminal justice. he then becme a local police officer in the communities of lincoln park michigan. when he sought to have more of an impact on keeping this country safe, he joined the border patrol. brian, it seemed, had found his niche. before long, he tried out and became a member of the border patrol's elite tactical unit known as bortac. at age 40, he had much to look forward to, which included getting married and starting a family. but for now, he was living his dream. he wore his insignia with great pride and excelled as a team

member. during training, brian was given a classroom writing assignment. the assignment wa to write something about himself that would give the instructors some insight as to who he was. he composed a poem that he entitled, if today is to be the day, so be it. i'd like to read you that poem so you can have a better understanding of the man he was. if you seek to do battle with me this day, you will receive the best i am capable of giving. it may not be enough, but it will be everything that i have to give. and it will be impressive for i have constantly prepared myself for this day. i have trained, drilled, and rehearsed my actions so that i might have the best chance at defeating you. i have kept myself in peak

physical condition, and have become proficient in the applications of combat tactics. you may defeat me, but i'm willing to die if necessary. i do not fear death, for i have been close enough to it on enough occasions that it no longer concerns me. but i do fear the loss of my honor. and would rather die fighting to have it said that i was without courage. so i will fight you. no matter how insurmouable it may seem, to the death if need be, in order that it may never be said of me that i was not a warrior. brian was due to complete his shift of duty that night in the desert outside of rio rico at midnight on december 15th. and then takes some much-deserved time off. he had already made his travel plans to fly back to michigan and spend a christmas holiday with his family.

brian's attention to detail had ensured that all the christmas gifts he had meticulously metic selected for his family had already been bought and sent in the mail prior to his arrival. brian did ultimately come home that christmas. we buried him not far from the house that he was raised in just prior to christmas day. the gifts that brian had picked out with such thought and care began to arrive in the mail the same week. with each delivery we felt the indescribable pain of brian's

death. but at the same time, also remembered his amazing love and spir spirit. we hope that you now know a little bit more about our brian. we ask that you honor his memory by continuing to ensure what he worked so hard to do and ultimately gave his life doing. that is to keep this country safe and its border secure. weope that the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms is forthcoming with all information that the panel is seeking. we ask that if a government official made a wrong decision, that they admit their error and take responsibility r his or her actions.

we hope that all individls involved in brian's murder and those that played a role in putting the assault weapons in their hands are found and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. finally, it'our hope that no more law enforcement officers die at the hands of these heavily armed mexican drug cartel members operating on and inside the borders of the united states. the terry family would like to acknowledge and thank the special agents and the fbi's tucson field office and the prosecutors and the u.s. attorneys in the tucson office at have worked so hard, and continue to work in bringing brian's killers to justice. we want to acknowledge the coage and integrity of the

three special agent of atf from th tucson office sitting with us on this panel. we recognize the professional risk you face by coming forward and speakin to the public about an investigation that you believe was ill conceived and reckless. the marine corps has the motto, which mostf you know which is latin for always faithful. the border patrol has the motto of honor first. brian lived a life of honor, duty and sacrifice, which reflected both of these mottos and thewo organization that he was so proud to serve in. it is now up to all of us to put honor first and to remain always faithful in the quest for

justice. on behalf of the entire terry family, thank you. >> thank you. special agent dodson, you're recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chaman, ranking member cummings -- >> please pull the mike a little oser and make sure that's on. >> is that better? mr. chairman, ranking member coming, other honorable members of this committee thank you. begin with my military service and continuing through today i'm proud to have spent my entire adult life in service to this country. to defend its constitution with my allegiance pledged to this public. i spent the vast majority of my law enforcement career conducting crimil investigations with the particular focus on those involving the trafficking of narcotics and firearms. i have been involve in countless investigations and arrest from basic misdeamnors to complex conspiracies. many times as an undercover.

i have made thousands of investigative stops and scores of arrest and testified many time in fed and state courts often as a qualified expert. do i not appear before you as some remote observer of these events casting a judgmental finger over the actions of other. acome bearing only my firsthand account. i've not the burdens of rendering judgment, determining responsibility or holding others accountable. i yield those to this committee. the only message i hope to convey is that through this process some resolve may be brought to the families of brian terry. that we may truly honor their service and mourn their sacrifice. i hope your inquiry and those of senator grassley's office and the inspector general will account for many others who have already been or will be affected by this operation. furthermore, i'm grateful to have the opportunity to appear he today, alongside the terry family so i may personally express to them my sorrow and my regret.

simply put, during this operation referred to as fast and furious, we the atf, fail to fulfill one of our most fundamental obligation, to care take the public trust, to keep guns out of criminals. when i became involved in this operation, i was briefed the local phoenix firearms dealers provided them with a list of individuals who was purchasing guns for others. of these individuals several members have connections with mexican drug cartels. those identified straw purchasers were the initial suspects of this investigation. from the earliest days of that operation after the briefing, i had no question that the individuals we were watching were acting as straw purchasers and that the weapons they purchased would soon be trafficked to mexico or other locales along the southwest border and ultimately these firearms would be used in a

violent crime. however, we did nothing to intervene. over the course of the next ten months we monitored as they purchased hand guns, and caliber rivals. almost daily at times. rather than conduct any enforcement actions we took notes, recorded observations, we tracked moments of these individuals. we were wroteeports but nothing more. knowing that the guns we saw these individuals buy were being turned up in incriminate scenes in the united states and mexico and yet we still did nothing. i recall, for example, one suspect as he met with another receive a bagful of cash. that cash then proceeded to another who conducted a transactioof firearms that we authorized him to do. this straw purchaser left the federal firearms dealer and met again with that third-party and delivered the firearms him.

and still we did nothing. although my instincts may want to intervene, my supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stop or arrest but rather to keep him under surveillance while allowing the guns. these were the rules. they were not the exceptions. this is not a matter of some weapons that gotten away from us or allowing a few to walk so we can follow them to a much larger more significant target. allowing loads of weapons we knew destined for criminals was the plan, this s mandate. i remember a lecture by army lieutenant colonel dave grossman. i borrow from it now. atf is supposed to be the guardian, the sheep dogs that protect against the wolves th prey upon us. rather than meet the wolf head on we sharpen his teeth, added number to his claw, all the while we sat idly by watching, tracking and noting as he became more efficient and effective

predator. prior to my coming to phoenix i had never been involved in or even heard an operation in which law enforcement officers let guns wa. the very idea of doing so is unthinkable to most law enforcement. i and other field agents involved in this operation repeatedly raised concerns with our supervisors. in response we were told we didn't understand the plan. i cannot begin to think of how the risk of letting guns fall into the hand of known criminals could possibly advance any possible legitimate law enforcement interest. i hope the committee receives a better explanation than i. i look forward to answering any questions that any of you may have. >> thank you, sir. special agent casa. >> good morning, mr. chairman. good morning mr. cummings. good morning honorable members of congress. i'm a senior special agent with the bureau of atf. i've been employed with atf since march of 1993 as both an inspector and later as a special

at. i'm assigned to the phoenix fielddivision, phoenix group seven and a strike force group. i've been assigned to that group since december 2009 to the present. as a special agent with atf, i've been a case agent, a co-case agt, and i participated in many firearms trafficking investigations, both domestic and international in scope. needless to say i feel i have extensive experience in regas to firearms trafficking investigations and my workas resulted in successful prosecution of mny individuals who violated the law. after reporting to phoenix group seven office in december of 2009, i was briefed by group members on the investigation fast and furious. shortly after i became aware of what i believed to be unusual and questionable investigative technique, for instance i became awarcertain straw purchasers were purchasing numerous firearms from firearm dealers but what i found concerning and alarm is more times than not no

law enforcement activity was planned to stop these straw purchasers from purchasing firearms. the only law enforcement activity that was occasionally taken the office conduct surveillance of the transaction and then nothing more. as the investigation progressed over the next couple of months, again with no obvious attempts to get the weapons or interview suspect, around the same time, phoenix group seven started to get traces to mexico. many traces to close the straw purchasers who were responsible for purchasing those recover firearms. at this time several special agents in the group including myself became concerned and alarmed at case agent mcallister and group supervisor's refusal to stop the straw purchasers from purchasing additional firearms. specialing agent john dodson and i raised our concerns directly with the case agent, cold case agent and group supervisor to no

avail. in response to our increasingly voiced concern, the group supervisor issued the infamous e-mail. it was a direct threat to the special agents who were not in agreement in how the case agent mcallister, co-case agent english or the group managed the investigation. based on my 18 years of experience with atf i did not think the e-mail was an empty threat. i took itery serious. it has been common practice for atf supervisors to retaliate against employees who don't to you the company line. daily surveillance of straw purchasers started to be conducted by group seven as well as other special agents from other offices. atf special agent alt reported to the phoenix group seven office around this period of time and like special agent dodson and i became alarmed of the direction of the investigation and spoke out against the practices that were

being utilized. by role during these daily surveillances was that of shift supervisor. as a sht supervisor my responsibility was to oversee agts, case agent mcallister and co-case agent english. my fears were realized. on numerous occasions, straw purchasers bought and depart with numerous firearms in hand. on many occasions the surveillance team would follow the straw purchasers to residents, pueblo cakes or until the surveillance team was spotted. the end result was the same. the surveillance was terminated by the case agent, co-case agent or supervisor without seizing the firearms. on several occasions i personally requested to seize

the firearms in such a manner that would only further the investigation but i was always told to stand down and not seize the guy arms. i made this request over the air and had many law enforcement witnesses that could verify my assertions. reflecting bk to that period of time during the investigation, i thought the poor decisions were made due to incompetency or lack of experience which would have made the situation bad enough. unfortunately in light of recent documents that were relsed, it appears investigation was conducted in a recklessly planned manner with a specific strategy in mind. further briefing paper the strategy the office allow the transfer of firearms to take place in order to further the investigation and allow for the identification of additional co-conspirators who would continue to operate. special agent dodson, special agent alt and i at times on a daily basis would warn of the reckless course they were taking. we stern lie warned them of the

consequences of their actions but were ignored. on at least a couple of occasions i witnessed special agent dodson to prepare to attend the funeral of a slain officer. neither one answered or even seemed concerned by the question posed to them. to close i would like to extend my heart felt condolences to border patrol agent brian terry's family. i'm truly sorry for your loss. i hope you find peace. >> thank you. special agent furcelli. >> good morning. i thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. i'm here to provide testimony that i hope will assist in your inquiry into the investigation that has come to be known as operation fast and furious. i believe that your inquiry is essential. there have been grave mistakes made in this case and the committee, the american people,

and the family of slain border patrol agent brian terry deserve answers. please allow me to give you a little background information about myself. in 1987 i began my career wi the new york city police department. i worked as an uniform police in the bronx. in my career i estimate i responded to approximately 600 homicide scenes. the vast majority were drug related committed by armed criminals and these violent criminals were armed with illegal firearms and had little regard for human life. retired early in june of 2001 to take a position with the alcohol, tobacco and firearms and then i did this because i had the honor of working with atf agents who were making great cases, working hand-in-hand with incredible prosecutors from the southern and eastern districts of new york and work with these officers one thing was very clear. dedicated prosecutorsing worked hand-in-hand with dedicated atf agents to make great cases that truly impacted the safety of the

public. there waan absolute sense of teamwork and respect. again, i'll emphasize the words tework and respect. together with prosecutors from the u.s. attney's offices whom i worked we used confidential informant, prove fer, cooperation agreements, waivers of speedy presentment, investigative grand juries and grand jury subpoenas and other investigative tools to make successful cases as part of a te. i left the new york field division to begin work in my current duty as supervisor of the phoenix one field office. within weeks i was surprised at what i observed. in my opinion, in my professional opinion dozens of firearm traffickers were given a pass by the united states attorneys office for the district of arizona. despite the existence and probable cause in many case, no indictments, no prosecutions and criminals were allowed to walk

free. we were forced to turn prosecution for firearm case. victor ravella who trafficked weapons to mexico one of which was to kill a mexico military commander was successfully prosecuted by the arizona attorney genal. mr. ravelli was released from jail last july. the alternative no prosecution, in my eyes was unacceptable. another case which involved a corrupt federal firearms licensee, who was supplying several firearms to trafficking organizations was declined by mr. harley. this particular dealer in his post-arrest statement admitted approximately 1,000 of his firearms were trafficked to mexico. over one half-dozen of those firearms were located around the

body of the head of the cartel after he was killed in a gun battle in mexico. cases such as these were presented for prosecution to the arizona attorney general's office where the state laws carried significantly lesser penalties than they did under the federal statutes and i believe this situation where in the u.s. attorney's office for the district of arizona in phoenix in particurly declined most of our firearms cases was one factor which led to the debacle that's now known as operation of fast and furious. atf agents assigned to the phoenix field division with the concurrence of their command walked guns. atf agents allowed weapons to be provided to individuals who they knew to be trafficked to members of the mexican drug trafficking organizations. th did so by not interdict the weapons.

when i voiced surprising concern with this tactic, my concerns were dismissed. the cases were groundbreaking and bragged we were the only people in the country doing this. i was also told you know if you or i were on the case it wouldn't be run this way. i've read documents that indicate that his boss u. atrney dennis burke also agreed with the direction of this case. allowing firearms to be trafficked to criminals is a deadly strategy. the thought that the techniques used in the investigation would result in taking do a cartel, giving the toothless nature of the law is, in my opinion, delusional. based upon my conversations with agents who assisted in this case, surveillance was often

terminated on individuals far from the border. while the case agent believed these weapons were destined for mexico the possibility is they were trafficked to other points within the united states of america. as a career law enforcement officer who has had to investigate the deaths of police officers, children and others at the hands of armed criminals i was and continue to be horrified, truly horrified. i believe that these firearms will continue to turn up at crime scenes on both sides of the border for years to come. in closing i want all americans to know this is not how atf agents conduct business. i'm very proud of some of the incredible work on behalf of atf agents every day. atf agents have given their lives. on my last trip back to new york i had the privilege of being present for a homicide trial. in that same courthouse in the southern district of new york there were three other separate homicide trials going on all from three separate atf initiated investigations. that's the type of work atf agents do every day and that's

what i want the committee to keep in mind as well. i thank y for your time. and, again, my condolences to the terry family. >> i thank you. thank all of our witnesses. i recognize myself for the first-round of questioning. mrs. terry, i understand the u.s. attorney in arizona visited you in december. you could tell us in your own words what he had to say? >> which attorney are you talking about? >> this is the u.s. attorney from arizona that came to visit you in december. >> yes. that wasr. burke. >> and what did he have to say to you? >> he was just trying to explain to us exactly what happened and in a roundabout way. we really never got anything out the visit that he did have. >> now, if he didn't tell you at at time that the firearms that

killed your son came from this opation, when did you learn about fast and furious and its connection to your son's death? >> most of it i heard from the media. we haven't really got anything direct, phone calls, nothing, from anybody. >> hopefully today we'll bring you some better answers on that. mr. hyer, i understand recently you received a call from the u.s. attorney's office in arizona. you could please tell us the content of that call? >> the u.s. attorney, dennis burke, has tried to keep us advised on the prosecution of the individuals believed to have a hand in brian's death. so i received a telephone call whenever an indictment was going to be made, and also some

information about where the investigation was going with respect to brian's killers. >> did he ever comment about your testimony here today? >> he did not. >> okay. mr. dodson, just yesterday the justice department said the following, and i'll make a su r suppositon for the record that this is untimely for this that came out. an unnamed law enforcement source said to the "new york times", they said gun ownership was such an ingrained part of the culture in arizona that it was difficult to tell straw purchasers from legal ones without blank, blank, blank. did you have trouble discerning

that? was it so difficult because of the culture that in fact any of you didn't know who e straw purchasers were? >> no, sir, not at all. first of all, i would question that unknown law enforcement source as to his background on these matters. >> here we call it washington spin. >> yes, sir. [ laughter ] >> sir, i can tell you this. in my knowledge and experience, when i got to phoenix the briefing i got initially and the 40 some suspects that were identified right off the bat, or had alady identified, those cases were made against those individuals, most of them alst that day if not all of them. to identify a straw purchaser from a normal american citizen who just happens to reside in the state where a gun culture is so prominent, perhaps if a one on one scenario existed or a one time but to have an individual purchase hundreds of firearms over the course of an

investigation while we'r watching him, there's -- make no mistake and he was straw purchaser. >> you probably agree when you see somebody buy hundreds, dozens or hundreds and take them to a drop point and even often more information it's pretty obvious they are a straw purchaser, you made your case under any kind of normal prosecution, wouldn't you? >> yes, sir, that's correct. >> mr. hyer, your a secret service agent, probably qualifies you as much as anyone that could be in this room to understand a question i'm going to ask you but you're also a family member. to date, the straw purchasers that were part of the chain of weapons that led to the murder of your cousin, they haven't en charged with that crime? they have been charged with -- whatever it is call, buy and lie, basically signing a false affidavit that they were the actual buyer of a gun. do you believe that it is

reasonable to be includi them in their connection to the murder of brian terry? >> congressman, again, i'm here as strictly family today and not as secret service agent. >> then for peter fucelli, you mentioned the prosecutions you see, including new york. you buy a gun. you knowingly sell it to a third-party. you lied about it at least to the murder. isn't that how you get connected to that trial in addition the trigger puller. >> yes, sir. a sequence of events you put together through interviews and other techniques. >> it's pretty unusualo have the murder, a high-profile murder of a border patrol agent and you don't roll up everybody involved into the prosecution which is taking place practically today? >> in all fairness, sir, i don't know what steps the fbi has taken in their investigation because that information has not been related to me at any point.

>> mrs. terry we'll do everything we can to get full answers and fuel prosecution. we want whatev will be the greatest relief we can give you to let you know this won't happen again. >> thank you. >>thank you. we now recognize the ranking member for his question. >> i want to thank all of you for being here today, and to the terry family we thank you for your sacrifice. tors. terry, you raised an angel. when the description was made by, when i listened to that poem, that poem said it all. i want to say to the family, i understand your pain. and i promise you we will not rest and to the agents, we will not rest, we will not rest until every single person responsible for all of this, no matter where

they are are put to justice. and you said it best mr. hyer, in your statement, the thing you said, u said it is now up to all of us to put honor first and to remain always faithful in the quest for stice. and you're absolutely right. and i promise you, we will not fail you. to the atf officers, i thank you. as i said earlier, this has got to be very, very difficult. and i make a commitment to you and it's what senator grassley said and i want the word to go out, let it go forth. that we want absolutely no retaliation against you. you're simply standing up for what you believe in. you are simply carrying out your oath of office. you simply have been great americans and continue to be and we thank you. we thank you so very, very much.

we thank you for your bravery and we thank you for what you're doing. one of the most troubling allegations we've heard during this investigation is that the atf agents group seven were ordered to terminate surveillance and monitoring of suspected straw purchasers without seizing the firearms. spectacle agent casa you made this statement. we fold straw purchasers to phoenix firearms dalers and observed the straw purchasers buy and depart withumerous firearms in hand. on many occasions the surveillance team would then follow the straw purchasers either to a public location or until the team was observed. do you know why the surveillance was terminated? was it -- do you think it was a resource problem or of it a strategy type of thing?

>> no, sir. we had plenty of resources. i believe it was a strategy. as i indicated later in my statement i found out about the briefing papers. at the time this was going on we had no idea why things were occurring. we were told to fall in line and do what we were told. >> you raised those concerns with your group supervisor? >> yes, sir. >> special agent dodson you participated in a transcred interview with the committee and your account is quite simila let me read what you said from the transcript. you said sometimes we would follow them back to their house, sometimes, to you know, a different house or a business or to meet another vehicle in a parking lot and then we would have to come back to head to another ffl because one of the other suspects, they were buying 15 or 20 of his own. special agent dodson, again, i'm trying to understand this. if you're following a suspected straw purchase and you started the gun store and follow it to a

house, why wouldn't you keep following that gun? >> sir, that's the one question that i can't answer for you is the wh it made no sense to us either. it's what we were ordered to do and every time we questioned that order, you know, there was punitive action against those of us who did so. as to why we would let them go or tuck them in bed at home and us leave for the night i can tell you the why, sir. that's why hopefully this committee can find out. >> we're going to find out. i under that there might be a new suspected -- i understand there might be new suspected straw purchases happening back at the gun store but if you keep leaving the guns you're following, start tracking new ones that doesn't seem to work. that's what you all are saying. did you raise your concerns, those concerns with your supervisor? >> yes, sir. many times. >> have either of you ever received an explanation as to why is operation would

voluntarily terminate surveillance of suspected weapon traffickers? anybody? >> sir, no. most of the time when asked or pressed for answer to that question, it was relayed to me that they didn't have to explain anything to me. i was to do a i was told. there were times when i questioned that even further our boss would have an asap come down and have a meeting and he would explain to us in his way of how he was not obligatedto explain it any further to us and we needed to follow orders. >> i think we're missing a piece of the puzzle here and i think we must do more. it sound like both of you raised concerns with your supervisor and i don't want to reach any conclusions on this yet because i think we need to dear more information. i think it makes sense to talk to the supervisor and figure out what his answer to these allegations might be. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you.

i'm assuming you join me in assuring that all of the other people above these gentlemen will be interviewed in a prompt fashion including those here in washington? >> mr. chairman, absolutely no doubt about it. and at the same time i'm glad you asked that question because we want to make sure, as i said, we want to make sure in the word of mr. hyer that everyone is brought to justice. let me be abundantly clear since you asked the question. i want to make sure there's no person, i don't care who they are, whose trial is jeopardized, that is able to get away, to get off of charges, i don't care how it's connected with this, i don't want their trials jeopardized. as a part of this court and one who practiced for many years i'm concerned about that. i think we can reach a balance. i've urged the justice department to cooperate. they have expressed their concerns. but, again, as i said fore and i promise this family, i promise

you, i'll do everything in my power. i will not rest until we bring everybody to justice. >> i thank the gentleman. we now recognize the gentleman from oklahoma mr. langford for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you all for being here. this has got to be a difficult day and not a day you ever hoped to be testifying in front of a congressional hearing, especially related to something like this. so we very much appreciate your time and for being here as well. let me ask several questions. give me your best guess and it's just a guess on this, how many weapons do we have in the united states or in mexico that are out there that are a result of fast and furious that we do not know where they are? >> sir, my best guess estimate and remembering that fast and furious was one case from one group in one field division. it's about 2,500 totally or in total that we facilitated the

sale of to these known straw purchasers, and i've heard numbers as many as 300 to 800 or so that we know to have been recovered. so outstanding, you're looking in the ballpark of anywhere from 1,000 to 1500, 1800 guns still. >> what's your best guess how many are in mexico and how many are in the united states? >> i would say 2-1, mexico versus united states. >> okay. were there any other mechanisms discussed to trace these weapons you knew were being sold to straw purchasers other than serial numbers. any other way to track them, trace them? >> yes, sir. >> how successful do you think that was? >> i can tell you that after a trip to radioshack with atf funds, i myself manufactured a gps tracking device that would fit inside the handle of an variant rifle. other attempts were made to have

gps systems, a gps system wired into one ak variant rifle. >> how was that received by supervisor? >> the one that went through our tech section nfc shy atd by them after my attempt to manufacture one didn't work out so well. the one we got from our tech side did actually work, and although it achieved its purpose in the last time i believe anyone knew it's whereabouts was about 50 miles south of the u.s.-mexican border. >> special agent casa, do you know of any other offices of atf using this type of strategy >> not that i'm aware of, no, sir. >> would you consider this a common practice that's being contemplated in any other area? >> no, sir. i finitely hope not. >> let me follow up on a statement that you made that's a very, very serious statement. you made the statement in your

opening stement, it's a common practice for supervisors to retaliate on special agents who do not tow the company line. >> yes, sir. >> that's a pretty serious statent. >> it's commonplace within at sir. >> is that unique to your area or is that unique to multiple areas, you think of atf? >> my experience within multiple areas within atf. i've known multiple, dozens of agents that have en, that have been received punitive punishments. whether they were justified or not. >> okay. mr. fucelli. >> yes, sir. >> do we have a perfect storm here of a u.s. attorney who is not willing to prosecute federal gun laws and a group of supervisors in atf that are promoting guns here or is there a sense that there's something coordinated going on. i understand this is a guess. >> what we have here is a

failure in leadership within the chain of command within the united states attorney's office and doj and individuals. to walk a single gun is an idtic move. more families will suffer at the hands of armed criminals. er with weren't giving guns to people hunting bear, we were giving guns to people killing other humans. the assumption all these guns went to mexico is something they believed in that group. >> but your assumption this was coordinated among all these individuals, this plan would happen and it was going to be allowed to happen. >> allowed to happen and trace ns into mexico, identify a cartel and take them down. the problem that we have is know based on what i've heard from agents and what i heard over the radio, surveillance was terminated often far from the bore terrify. some of these guns could be diverted with cartel funds to

new york, baltimore, anyerin the united states. that was a disaster. >> thank you. with that i yield back my time. >> we now recognize the gentlelady from new york, administers mccarthy. maloney. i'm sorry. you're both new york but i know the difference. >> thank you for calling this important hearing and i join my colleagues in expressing our condolences and support the terry family. and i thank all of the professionals in law enforcement for your work and your bravery. and i especially want to welcome special agent furcelli since i used to have the honor of representing the beautiful bronx of where you served, and i appreciate your statements in support of the atf in new york and their fine wor i would like to ask you, special agent furcelli,ome of the specific statements in your testimony to try to get a better

understanding of what evidence is necessary in order to get a conviction in these cases. and if i understand this correctly, there is no federal statute that specifically prohibits straw purchases, is that correct? >> no, ma'am. there is a statute but the statute doesn't carry significant jail time and candidly -- i had great success in working with several mr. stwrags the u.s. attorney's office in new york and we used basic techniques. you arrest the people who are the bottom feeders, lowereople in an organization and you proffer them. gather information. utilize waivers of speedy presentment where you have somebody go do a delivery in the street to catch the next guy in the chain. have the straw guy deliver the firearms to the trafficker and arrest the trafficker. we didn't have those tools available to us in arizona because the united states attorney's office wouldn't allow us to utilize waivers of speedy presentment before a magistrate.

proffers almost never happened. the basic investigative techniques that i used in the southern district of new york, eastern district of new york and elsewhere weren't being deployed in the district ever arizona. >> working with my staff when we looked into it, straw purchases are typically charged under section 922 and 924 of the criminal code and these sections make it a crime to knowingly make a false statement. and in this case the false statement would be when a straw purchaser lies on a form 4473, when he or sheakes a straw purchase. this was the way that they went after straw purchases in other states. are you ware of these two sections, and knowingly making a false statement? are you wa of that particular -- >> i am, ma'am. again, i'll just seat in many significans these ces weren't prosecuted by the u.s. attorney's office. . it get back to thefalse statement. and what is the false name they

would make on such a form that they could use in prosecutions? are you aware? >> well, the most blatant one is there's a box that you check whether or not our buying the gun for yourself. a straw purchaser clearly is not. >> getting back to ur statement on the prosecutions of border state u.s. attorneys have complained that district court judges view these prosecutions as mere paper violations and have you heard this criticism before? >> i have and i agree with it. i think perhaps a mandatory minimum one year sentence might deter an individual from buying a gun. some people view this no more an dng 65 in a 55. >> if the gentlelady will suspended. i want to caution the witnesses that the scope of this, your testimony here is limited, and that it's not about proposed legislation and the like and under house rules would not fall

within the scope of ths. so, anecdotally you can have opinions but it's not considered valid testimony. >> point of order. >> yes. >> let me just -- the officer for sully in his, in his testimony has a statement, mr. chairman, that i read where he says that these firearms are ending up on both sides of the border. and i think it's only fair that since it's his statement that want she, and that's basically what she's pretty much going to -- >> the gentlelady can ask any queson she wants within the scope of the hearing. under rule 11 clause 2k8 it's the discretion of the committee as to the breadth of the testimony. any question related to the operation or the failures of fast and furious or fact the all

indications of what occurred in arizona or throughout the system are within the scope of the hearing, proposed legislation at a federal level and whether or not they should be changed are outside the sce of notnly this hearing but would not ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction of this committee. >> further point of order,r. chairman. it's my understandi of the rules is that you can object to the question but you can't tell the witness what to testify to. >> you're cutting into my time. i appreciate the chairman's statement. and i appreciate your statement earlier you wanted full answer and full prosecution. i think it's certainly within the scope of this hearing to understand why we're not getting a full prosecution. and the allegation that they call them paper excuses as opposed to a valid concrete way to react i think is a valid way to go forward. i'm supporting your statements. >> the gentlelady's questions

and whether or not the gentleman believes that law enforcement was doing its job or that the courts were properly enforcing and whether that may have led to actions is fully within the scope. anything that these individuals witnessed in or around fast and furious is certainly within the scope. i only caution we're not here to talk about proposed gun legislation, it would be outside the skoech this hearing. >> wasn't discussing that. i was trying to figure out why the justice department and the a.g. found prosecutors often declined these gun cases. i want to know why they are declining them. to quote from the testimony, one of you said becse they believe it is difficult to obtain convictions on these violations and because they believe it is difficult to obtain paper work from mexico. and my question is are these valid excuses not to bring these cases. i think that's a valid question as to why we're not getting prosecutions in these cases? are they valid excuses to say

they are paper excuses not to bring it? >> i believe not, ma'am. to go after the mid-level and upper level members of the cartel you need to start unless you have evidence on them immediately with the people at the bottom of the food chain. when straw buyer cases are dismissed because of excuses made up by the united states attorney's office, then you can't prosecute that body feeder to move up to the next level. >> one of you in your testimonies called these laws toothless, and you could explain to me why our existing straw purchase laws toothless? >>y opinion, ma'am, is that with these types of cases, for somebody to testify against members of a cartel where the alternative is seeing a probation officer once a month, they will opt towards not cooperating with the law enforcement authorities. >> and what would help your

interactions with u.s. attorneys office? mr. casa, mr. furcelli or others, what would help you to be able to be part of getting convictions in bringing those to justice that are part of these straw purchases that led to the death of mrs. terry's son. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. can you answer that. >> first and foremost they need more resources the u.s. attorney's office in arizona. there are overwhelming numbers of gun crimes occurring there. if they don't have the resources to prosecute them then i imagine they would need some assistance in those regards. >> we now recognize the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador for five minutes. >> thank you. terry family, thank you for being here. i will always remember the poem and i think i'm going tout this on my wall. i not fear death but do i fear loss of my honor. i think that's something hopefully every member of congress can somehow remember.

i think sometimes we worry too much in death and in our case deh is the next election and too many of us forget that what we should be worried about is our northern and the honor of this nation. so thank you, mrs. terry, for raising a great son. i have five children and i can even imagine what you're going through. when did you mrs. terry, when did you first hear that -- i think you said you first heard about the weapons being purchased through the operation fast and furious. you heard that through the media or did you hear that from any of the agencies? >> no. excuse me. mostly on tv, the media, newspapers. i never really got a call about anything like that until it was brought out in the newspaper. >> okay. how did you feel when you heard about that?

>> i was -- i just was flabbergasted. i didn't believe it at first. >> did you have any questions, did any questions come to your mind when you started learning that maybe there was something? because i think -- ieard about this when i was first elected. i'm a freshman here. i was just first elected. right after my election i started to hear from people in my districabout this and we were, in fact, some of the first to call for a hearing here in congress about this. and in the house. and what went through your mind? what were some of the thoughts that you had? >> well, i did ask a lot about how it happened, when it happened, why it happened. but never got no awers because nobody wand to say anything. >> so did you address these questions with the department of justice or any members of -- >> yes. >> no one has answered those

questions. >> we got a lot of different answers. >> to whom did you speak specifically, do you remember? >> well we've been to so many memorials and talked to so many people. but i've talked to a lot of his bortac friends that were on the unit that was with him. and they were like der gag orders so they couldn't tell us anything. it was like they didn't even want to talk to us. >> are you satisfied with the answers you're getting? >> no. >> no. any of the members of the family your satisfied with any of the answers you're getting? mr. hyer? >> i think i can speak for the family, congressman, that there is a level of frustration for the family. i want to make it clear that our number one goal is to pursue the prosecution of all the killers

of brian. that's our number one goal. and, you know, the u.s. attorney's office in tucson and the fbi is working very hard to do that. but i also think that i can speak for the family. we've talked about this this morning. that there seems to be a separation, a distinct separation between brian's murder investigation and the atf operation gun runner fast and furious operation. there seems to be a hesitancy to connect the two. so that part is very frustrating. >> can you tell me, special agent casa, or any of the special agent, that's a great point. why do you think there's this separation. why are they making the separation between murder of the agent and the operation gun

runner? >> simply put is to reduce their liability and our atf's role in this murder. started with the straw purchase that wasn't interdicted and end up in the murder of a law enforcement officer. by the sounds of it a very honorable law enforcement officer. >> thank you. i have no further questions. >> will the gentleman yield? >> absolutely. >> following up on that, the two serial numbers that were used and found at the scene, to your knowledge, aren't those serial numbers not the first, second or third purchases, meaning there already was a case made against a potential defendant and i could have been arrested and even turned as an informant, potentially, priority to the sale of those two weapons? >> my understanding is yes. >> thank you. we regnize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

first of all, mrs. terry and mr. hyer my prayers and condolences goes to your son, your cousin and family. special agent furcelli, in your statement you expressed extreme from us twrags the u.s. tone's office in phoenix. you said that they gave dozens of firearms, traffickers a pass. you also testified that they allowed criminals to walk free, and you indicated that they declined most of the cases, most of your cases and this was at least one factor which led to the debacle and perhaps the necessity of operation of fast and furious, is that correct? >> yes, sir. i strongly believe that. >> those are strong allegations. i want to ask about specific cases you cite. first you talk about the 2007 casef victor ravela who trafficked 50 caliber rifles to the mexican cartels one of which was used to kill a mexican military commander.

the u.s. marshall david gonzalez id at the time this case was made one of our highest priorities because of the nature of the crime but you say the assistant u.s. attorney in phoenix wouldn't prosecute. do you believe in that want case that we had sufficient evidence to move forward with the prosecution? >> absolutely. in fact, sir, that case was prosecuted by the arizona attorney general's offic where they had to utilize statutes that aren't normally utilized in gun cases. they had to charge them fraud schemes. mr. harley the assistant u.s. attorney who declined the case stated because the gun was in mexico, the body othe crime was in mexico, we have no case and outright declined prosecution for that reason. we had identified additional straw buyers in mr. ravela's network. we got cooperating statements from them. they also went to jail. this could have been a very good federal case. again the u.s. attorney's office decline it because in their opinion the gun being in mexico

meant that the evidence of the crime was in mexico. >> do you know any other office or region that applies that type of standard to go forward with prosecutions? >> sir, i was told this was a ninth circuit issue but i've had discussions with prosecutors in los angeles which is also ninth circuit that say they didn't rry it to that extreme. what i will say for the record, sishs since then, since mr. harley is no longer trunk firearms unit, he no answers to another supervisor they now amended that to say that if we can go down and physically examine the weapon, that they will now charge those crimes. but for two years where i was in charge of the firearms trafficking unit if the gun went to mexico that case was dead. >> okay you also testified regarding the gun store case in 2008. you said the dealer admitted 1,000 firearms were trafficked to mexico and half a dozen or so

were found around the dead body of the cartel leader. is that correct? >> yes, sir. for the record i would like to point out that case was brought to trial by the arizona attorney general's office. the case was dismissed by the judge. so that case was dismissed. what i will say so in regards to that case is i did, after that case was declined by the united states state attorney's office present that case to the southern district of new york for prosecution because they were doing a lot of international narcotics trafficking cases and that office said if we could show them one wire transfer through their district they would have been interested in taking that case. in the state where all these crimes were taking place they were willing to dismiss prosecution efforts. >> both "the washington post" and pbs front line support your version, i guess, concluded that if there were ever a good case against a set of rogue gun

traffickers was that and i'll read excertain from "the washington post". it says this was a case that seemingly had everything in its far. the agents had tons of evidence. surveillance. recorded phone calls. confidential informants and undercover agents. this case was denied as you say by the assistant u.s. attorney in phoenix. is that correct? >> yes. same u.s. assistant attorney who was the prosecutor in the fast and furious investigation. >> in 2009, 2010, i'm running out of time you also say the same u.s. attorney declined dozens of other cases, is that coect? >> after 2009 my duties wering changed to home invasion investigation. i'm not certain what happened. >> what's your assessment of why this specific u.s. attorney repeatedly refused to take gun cases? do youave any -- >> sir, i don't know. i couldn't give you a reason as to why. >> maybe we should have him in for questioning. >> that would be great. >> all right. mr. chairman, i've run out of

time. >> would the gentleman like an additional 30 seconds. >> please. >> without objection. >> just want to note that your testimony which is very good and, look, it takes a lot of courage to do what you gentlemen are doing. it goes back to 2007. >> it does. >> so, you know, this isn't a political issue because obviously, you know, we're talking about career prosecutors that have been there since the bush administration and you cite going back to 2007, you're not alone in your assessment, we've heard other complaints from other witnesses. so, i just want to thank you for your willingness to come forward and help the committee with its work. i want to thank the chairman for the extra 30 seconds. thank you. >> thank you sir. >> thank you. we recognize the gentleman from utah. >> first to the terry family thank you for your son's service, your relative's service. he's a hero. we got a lot of people on the front line doing tough things.

and there will be nights ahead. i just want to know andxpress given an opportunity to know how much appreciate his service and will remember him. and to the agents brave enough to step forward and tell it like it is, we thank you. it takes a lot of bravery to step forward, do the right thing. i know you probably had sleepless nights and will have others moving forward, but you're doing the right thing and we want to thank you f your service and for your bravery in sharing your personal perspectives in this situation. mr. dodson, let's start with you for asecond. at what point did you come to the -- you had to come forward, had to say something. usually these things build up or something big happens. explain to me what happened whe you thought enough was enough? >> you mean outside of atf, sir? >> in this particular case. why did you get to this point where you're sharing this information? >> well, i questioned my supervisors almost immediately, oncewe realized, once we

relocated the phoenix and got briefed and started operationally that we were allowing this to go. then as a case agent, my supervisor and chain of command to me i was wrong and they were right and this was a righteous operation. it wasn't until on december 15th, 2010 when i read, we have a significant incident report, deiling the preliminary investigation into the trace and weapons purchased, and after reading that and speaking with my fbi countearts and learning that they were unaware of the events regarding the purchase and trace of the firearms, i had to go outside the atf, i attempted to contact the council office, ethics section. made several attempts to contact

oig office and ultimately i was able to speak to someone at snar graph ner's office. >> do you think there's a conflict with oig given the fact it started as a result of recommendation or do you see any conflict that the investigator general has? >> i can see a conflict between the office of the oig, the actual individuals working the case, my interaction with them since interviewed by them is i think they get it. however, those two offices being what they are and how they are aligned, there's inherently a confct of interest there, if in fact someone at doj knows about it, is as well versed as anyone as atf, that thereby creates a conflict with oig. >> give me an idea of the size and scope. talking about thousands of guns going south, so to speak. in your normal course of business, if you thought there was a straw purchase happening, how many guns would push you

over the threold t say we better stop that? >> sir, i can tell you prior to my arriving in phoenix, december 2009, my entire career we have never lost a firearm. as a matter of fact, even if one had gotten away from us, if it was only a prop which was mechanically engineered to not effectivy fire a round, even if that got away from us, no one went home until we got it back. >> even just one gun? >> yes, sir. and in this case we have thousands of guns. >> what was the goal here? i mean -- >> sir, i can tell you what i was told. i was told that the goal is to ultimately target and bring in entire cartel to prosecution. >> how were they going to do that. the suspected cartels were in mexico, were they not? >> yes, sir, they were. i have no idea how they planned to do that by this operation or how it was designed to function. >> so was it the goal to knowingly and intentionally allow these guns to go into

mexico? >> was that the ultimate goal? not as explained to me. was that part of the rules in play to achieve what the goals they had explained, yes. we were mandated let these guns go. make no mistake. there was not a time we were out there on surveillance where we didn't have the forethought that these were going to be recovered in crimes. the next time we became aware of these guns would be when they were recovered at the final crime, not whatever crime they might have done, it was the last crime they commit that -- not they commit but the person that has them commit that they are recovered in. there may be nine or ten the cartels perpetrated with those firearms prior to that date, but that recovery date is when we'll learn about it. so ultimately what was the main goal as explained to me was to get a cartel. the mission, what we were doing, what we were ordered to do every day was watch these same guys buy the same guns from the same

dealers who we told to make the sales, and then we would sit back and wait for traces. and when they came through from places in mexico where it was definitively related to cartels, they were giddy. they thought it justified, it created their nexus from this straw purchaser to the cartel. however, there is not a rookie police officer in the country that can explain to you how we're going to make a case on them with that information. >> my time expired. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. yield five minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first join my colleagues in expressing profound sympathy to the terry family for your loss and the country's loss. it may sound hollow to say thank you for his service. we are in a terrible battle in the southwest of the country and border with mexico and northern

mexico. sadly, he is another victim of that terble battle. but his memory and his contribution are something that will long be remembered and appreciated and our thoughts and prayers go out to you and the family. i want to thank the three agents for being here and for your courage and for your testimony. i want to respectfully suggest, however, that i think we urged you to speak freely at some risk, and that means answering questions freely, without interference from any other member of this committee. and we don't censor content here. the hearing has a scope, but if you feel an answer to a question requires clarification, you don't need to be mindful of the scope and every member of the committee has a right to ask

questions, solicit answers. i want you to have that confidence before we begin urging you to speak freely, so yocan speak freely answering questions, including questions by this member. let me ask you, i read your testimony about the u.s. attorney in phoenix, and i want to explore with you a little b to what do you attribu the seeming reluctance to prosecute aggressively obvious illegal behavior that has a direct impact on your mission and that of the u.s. attorney's office? >> sir, i can't say for sure. again, i don't want to paint the united states attorney office with a broad brush. we had a successful program that took place two summers ago where we arrested 70 home invaders, violent crimils doing drug robberies and prosecuted them and went to trial. for some reason, the firearms unit which when i first arrived was run by rachel hernandez, then run by emory hurley consistently had issues with

prosecuting our cases. one example, we had an informant that they dismissed outright. this informant provided truthful testimony, accurate information. everything that met all the standards we look for in law enforcement, they dismissed every case this informant had anything to do with. when i questioned him as to why are we no longerer using this informant, they said his information was inaccurate and lied. i was upset. i had such -- i went back and looked at the information and that informant's information was dead on. we asked why are we not using this informant, she said he was with emergency witness assistance program funds, and policy says we can't do that. having worked with southern district of new york and contacting main justice, found out that wasn't true. the only disclosure would be at trial you may have to articulate that informant was paid those funds. when i approached her again about this particular situation

because dozens of cases hung in the balance, she finally conceded well, he wore a lot of jewelry, he doesn't have jewelry appeal. -- doesn't have jury appeal. we won't use him. i put all kinds of people on the stand as part of cooperaon agreements. part of a lawyer's job is to prep a witness. if he wore too much gold chain or didn't have jury appeal, it is incumbent on the prosecutor to prepare him for testimony. it was either lazy or arrogance that tainted many cases. >> when you compared that experience to your experience in new york, this was unusual? >> sir, i can say that i worked at the sus attorney's office mostly for the southern district through mary joe white's tenure, dave kelly, james comb ee, even currently, consistently outstandg. i can tell you that in the united states attorney's office from arizona when i got there, daniel cannous was acting. and it was bad to win gun cases.

it has improved slightly since this flare up, but it has been consistently bad. >> one final question, i wish i had more time, but we talked about resources. there are 8500 licensed gun dealers in the four southwestern states. >> yes. >> you have 224 atf agents. do you really have the resources you need to do your yob? >> it is amazing, i just had contact with a friend of mine in the 46th precinct where i worked as a new york city police officer. one square mile. there are 355 officers for that one square mile. i have less than 100 agents assigned to the entire state of ariza, 114,006 square miles. do we have the resources? no. does that stop -- >> no, different issue. thank you, special agent. >> sure. >> thank you, g to the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and

thank you for your leadership on this issue and to the family of agent terry, let me say on behalf of the people from south carolinawe offer our condolences and thank you for the service and ultimately the sacrifice, your son, your brother, your friend. to atf. i worked with atf for 16 years and i find this hearing to be bitterly disappointing. this is not reflective of the atf agents that i worked with for 16 years, and this panel is perhaps not the best panel for me to express my displeasure, but nonetheless, let me ask you this. when did atf have either constructive or actual knowledge guns were going to mexico? >> sir, it is my understanding in 2009 when operation fast and furious was initiated, they were not interdicting firearms and had knowledge those guns were

being trafficked in mexico. >> when you say that, you mean something as simple as a traffic stop several miles away from where the purchase was made. so you don't blow the informant, that easily could have done, right? >> absolutely. let me int out something, sir. a lot of when we say informant, a l of information that came to atf came from gun dealers who dn't like the fact they are portrayed as a nefarious market. gun dealers were our friends. they helped us make a lot of these cases and we had successful cases. this is an anomaly, the fast and furious investigation. but the problem is getting them mixed up in this, encouraging them to sell guns when they decided to stop did not help our reputation with the gun industry. the other thing is if our job is to stem the flow of firearms into mexico and certain gun dealers realize there's a straw purchasing problem and willing to make an analogy, turn off the

fawcetts, we could have diverted elsewhere where we thought the straw purchases were going to. we just encouraged them to sell guns. it made no sense. >> even for this investigation as half baked as it was to ever have worked, you would have had to have extradited folks from mexico back for prosecution in a lying and buying case with statutory maximum of what, ten years? and the guidelines, what are the guidelines in the typical lying and buying case? >> generally speaking, peoe without criminal history, why they can fill out the form, they get probation. again, that's if they are prosecuted at all. >> they could have done car stops, could have done search warrants. already had a title iii up from what i understand. correct? >> yes. >> even if it had worked, don't understand how it ever would have worked. >> well, sir, let's say for example that we wouldn't get as far as to be able to extra diet heads of the cartel. perhaps by doing interdictions,

we could deter some guns being purchased. secondly, had we been able to stop a straw buyer, perhaps do a controlled delivery, we would have made it to the next level in the organization. >> you could have flipped. you don't have to let the guns walk, flip them. >> absolutely. >> how does your u.s. attorney not do profrs? >> that shocks me, sir. they do them very sparingly. 70 homeinvasion defendants we arrested as i pointed out earlier. we proffered one. we could have solved untold number of crimes had we had access to those defendants. >> this what federal agencies were involved and what complaints did they lodge? >> i can tell you the genesis of the case, had an agent with immigration and customs enforcement in group seven on a

cocaine sfat us. ice was involved. >> was the bureau nvolved? >> i'm sorry? >> bureau, fbi? >> atf group seven is the phoenix strike force group. the doj strike force consists of entities from dea, fbi, atf, and ice. >> what i am trying to get a sense of, i have less than a minute, i want to know how many different law enforcement officers and agencies told the united states attorney's office this is a dreadful idea. how many different people and agencies said this is unprecedented, it is a dreadful law enforcement idea and needs to stop? how many people told miss mccallister and miss english this is a horrible idea? >> as for agencies that expressed that to the u.s. attorney's office, none that i am aware of. as for individuals that expressed to miss mccallister and myself, agency casas, agent

ha. >> almost every person came through that group saw what was going on. >> every agent outside phoenix field division as well as many in it. specifically those that came in from the outside were appalled as soon as they learned. >> i am out of time. but i would like to ask one more question. when this supervisor realized guns were making it into mexico, acknowledging the fact that we do not have much success extraditg people from mexico for lying and buying cases, were mexican authorities warned hey, something bad has happened and firearms are in your country because we turned an eye to it? >> sir, i can say having had conversations with our staff in mexi city, this is atf personnel assigned to mexico ci, they were not fully briefed on this, were very upset about it. this is something that was contained within the atf group seven. >> we are going to ask for

extradition cooperation from a country that doesn't even know what we're doing, doesn't know we're letting guns go into their country that myrrher their citizens and our agents. >> nose. the way this case is designed, we don't have a lying and buying charge on the individual that committed the crime in mexico with these firearms. they are not the ones that lied on the form. >> you would have to have a conspiracy case. i'm sorry, i am out of time. >> never took the steps t develop that conspiracy, sir. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you very much. my condolences to the family as well. i am not going to be asking you any questions, but i don't want you to interpret that as being unmindful of your pain and sacrifice on that. i hope you accept it as such. i would like to talk to the three special agents on this and go back. first of all, i do suspect the mexican government understands that there are guns coming from the united states into mexico. mexican ambassador stated clearly that he thinks guns in

the united states impeding violence and overwhelming fire power is being unleashed by drug traffickers. i think they are quite aware of that. but before the fast and furious became the policy we are all seriously questioning now, was it the project gun runner, th policy of the governmt in 2006 and 2009? >> project gun runner was a funding source that led to staffing, many groups on the southwest border offices with agents. project gun runner was preceded by something they referred to as operation southbound. and what that did, we identified straw buyers through the cooperation of gun dealers or through reviewing documents of past firearms purchases, and then we would go out and do car stops and interdictions. many of those interdictions, there were no prosecutions for the reasons stated earlier, but the point was that we lawfully seized weapons based on probable

cause and those wouldn't hurt anybody. there were times a gun dealer was suspicious of a person, we would stop them, that person was a law abiding citizen. they went on the way with their lawfully purchased firearm and their apology. but if they were criminals, the guns were in our custody whether they went to jail or not and they never hurt a soul. >> were there weapons still making it to mexico? >> absolutely. it is the nature of straw purchasing. a straw purchaser is someone who is legitimate. if the gun dealer makes that sale and that person hands it off to somebody that brings it to mexico, we have no way of knowing that until the gun is recovered in mexico. >> you're familiar with the i can na dozian case? >> i was supervisor in that case. >> you were unhappy with that result? >> extremely. >> in that case, did the judge make determination that essentially -- he threw the case out after eight days of trial on the premise that there was no proof that the ultimate person

that got the gun was a person not allowed or lawfully in possession? >> correct. what he was stating we couldn't prove he was splying. that wasn't the allegation or nature of the case. again that's why after that happened i tried to present this to the united states attorney's office in new york, incredible for doing international naotics cases. had we had one wire transfer in that district, i am convinced we would have had a successful prosecution there. >> do you think there's hesitation on federal prosecutors because they think somehow pursuing these could be interpreted as looking to violate somebody's second amdment rights? >> no, sir. >> that's notcausing the inertia on the part of the prosecutors? >> i would have to agree that no. >> so if a person goes into a

store, gun store, and buys two, three, four hand guns, does federal law require them to report that? >> yes, sir. >> if i were a person went into a store, bought four or five long guns? >> no such requirement, sir. >> what if i went in, you're familiar with the romanian aks? >> yes. >> fair to say those are high amount or large proportion of guns going to mexico constitute aks. >> absolutely. >> they are coming from romania to this country, doctored and changed and move on to mexico? >> yes, sir. >> if i bought any of those, store owner doesn't have to report that. >> no. >> if that was reported, would that be something you would investigate? >> it is my opinion like we monitor money going tough the mideast and how much sudafed people buy in a pharmacy because it is used to make

methamphetamine, not everyone that buys a gun is a criminal, but it is an indicator why are they buying seven aks. we don't know about the sales unless we have a cooperative dealer calling us saying something is not right, or b, one of the weapons is found at a crime scene and traced to the individual and we pull the paperwork manually from the gun dealer. >> any law enforcement reason or rationale why we wld not want that information reported? >> multiple sale of long arms like remaining aks. >> i can only give personal opinion. it would be a good indicator, much like it is handguns. >> you can't think of any reason not to have it reported, wouldn't interfere with law enforcement efforts if it was reported? >> in my opinion it would help our efforts, sir. >> the gentlan's time expired. gentleman from texts, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i, too, would like to express condolences to the terry family,

the district i represent includes brownsville where the family of a special agent resides as well, and they are going through some pain similar to what you guys are going through very possibly as a result of ill conceived policies by the atf. i didave a couple of questions for the gentlemanhere from the agency, and appreciate your courage in testifying and want to assure youhat i think i speak for the bulk of this committee that we really appreciate your courage in coming out. certainly it would be a bad thing if there were to be any repercussions. myuestion, in your testimony you were talking about you had followed that straw buyer from the gun store and it would stop. did you all ever go beyond the firsthandoff of that weapon to trace them to where they were

going? >> not really, no. many a times what we would do is weould have the information beforehand where they would call the ffl and say hey, we are coming by to pick up 10 or 15 of these rifles, then they would notify the case agent and we would begin surveillance. we would often go to the straw purchaser's house, catch him bere he leaves there, catch him as he meets an individual at a car wash or whatever to get money. >> you didn't follow that individual, move it up the chain. if you were out to make a case against people higher in the chain, wouldn't the next logical step have been following the gun? >> that would be very logical after he purchased firearms and delivered to another parking lot, and special agent cox and i took pictures of them going from one vehicle to another, we had to follow the straw purchaser back to his house while we knew the other guns were going the other way on the highway. i can't tell you the logic. >> we were given direction by

the case agent or group supervisor. we were literally pulled off surveillances. we would make requests after a straw purchase exchange had taken pla, w requested hey, this is a good opportunity to seize the firearms from unknown person, plus identify the unknown person, plus might be able to move up the chain. we were told point blank time and time again, absolutely not, no. >> i apologi for going fast, i have limited time. you said you built a tracking device from stuff you bought at radio shack and yo had one out of thousands of weapons, one that the agency provided for you that ran out of battery, is that correct? >> to my knowledge there was just the one, yes, sir. >> if you were trying to track guns, wouldn't a logical w be to embed a tracking device in the gun or packaging. >> when the statement was made we were trying to track firearms, we were trying to tracwhere they were used. >> this is going to the mexican drug cartel involved in multiple

murders, potentially bringing bigger charges against straw men for a bigger conspiracy, you would want to see everybody involved in that conspiracy. >> most definitely, sir. what i would have done, i would have land on straw purchasers and before long i would have had that information for you. >> all right. so let me ask you this. the policy we have just following them and quitting, do you see any rationale behind that? could you come up with any reason we were stopping when we were stopping? any theory at all? >> sir, i'll say this. for years when i first got to phoenix, i was supervising firearm trafficking investigations and we utilized trackers and did what you pointed out. we would make a car stop at the hand to hand exchange or we would seize the weapon if it got to a reasonable point we thought it might go to mexico. to answer your queson, i sat on many times trying to figure out what the logic would be to let the firearms go to mexico and i can't think of a single

logical reason why this strategy would work. >> and you're not aware of any cooperation with the mexican authorities or any of our intelligence agencies that might be tracking these beyond mexico or anything. >> i think if we were tracking them, we wouldn't see the tragic results we see when the guns are traced back from murder scenes. >> were you doing anything to identify the weapons other than recording serial numbers, test firing them, gathering ballistics information or anything else? >> no. the firearms were being sold and like i said in most instances taken out of the country. i know once mexican government takes possession, assets in mexico examine them and i am not exactly sure. >> you work on the border. you realize mexico takes bringing guns into their country pretty seriously, taking a shotgun to go bird hunting there is an experience. >> yes, sir. >> this is something our friends, allies and neighbors would be very concerned about

and we didn't bother to inform them. >> we did t. >> thank you very much. >> we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the special ents for appearing. we admire your courage and patriotism for dng that. my questions really are to the terry family. sorry, i know how difficult it was for opening statement. i will tell you now as i am in the autumn of my life, i think unintended consequences of poor policies and procedures and failed strategies at some point somebody has to be held accountable for these things, and as difficult as it may be for yourself and the terry family, if the person responsible were in the room now for operation fast and furious, what might you want to say to them. and please, i think it is so important for the public to understand the purpose of these

hearings. while we are upset with the policies, it is important for pele to understand there is a loss of human life here. so it is more than just a strate thafailed, more than a failed policy and procedure, it is the loss of someone so near and dear to you. so your opportunity to do that. i would appreciate. >> well, it is tough. brian was an amazing kid. an amazingly brave kid that was willing to put his life on the line. if that person were in the room, obviously we'd want him or her to accept responsibility. right now, looking back at this operation, it appears that it has cost the life of our brian.

we hope and pray it's not going to result in any adtional lives of u.s. law enforcement, but i don't know if we can truly -- if that's truly going to happen. those guns are out there. so beyond accepting responsibility f these decisions and we would be curious why did you feel this was within that risk. i've heard from the atf agents here that even a mockup weapon normally would not have been allowed to walk during these operations, and an awful lot of weapons walked and we would be curious to find out why.

>> anything to add? i don't know what i would say to them, but i would like to know what they would say to me. that's all i would say. >> well, it is difficult. i don't want to put you through any of this, but i think it is incredibly important because the fabric of your family has been torn and can't be put back together again. the purpose of these hearings really is to make sure nobody else has to go through the same thing you have gone through. so i appreciate you being here. with that, mr. chairman -- >> you yield? >> the gentleman yields. thank you. >> i agog to follow a line of questioning i think i have been seeing develop here with law enforcement experts. you have two points, the old expression, you connect the dots. first point is the straw buyer, last point is the scene of the crime. you said each of you special

agents as soon as you got to the next point of connect the dots, you were sent the other direction. you weren't allowed to go the next direction or to the next point even when they headed north with the weapons. now, if an operation like fast and furious seems to have a pattern, a consistent pattern, that you're only looking for two points, the beginning and the end, it is not a criminal prosecution, it is not an effective one, plus, of course, if you take the logic you can't prosecute a straw purchaser of guns in mexico if you take that point, then that part of it was frivolous from the start, even though today every one of those straw purchasers has been charged oddly enough with the evidence that was available before the gun ever walked beyond the first step. let me just ask a question for your accept sigs, but i think it is a well indicated one. if you only look at the dot, isn't true guns go to mexico,

could that be a political decision? could that be a decision that basically we want to substantiate guns in america go to mexico, something we all knew, but would have considerable political impact as mexico began to say yeah, we were even rolling up straw purchasers. it wouldn't change the fact mexicans were dying at the bequest of the united states, but wouldn't it ultimately meet political goal? >> i imagine, sir, that it's possible. in this instance, i think it is more as i said earlier, a case agent that had a bad idea, a group supervisor who failed to reign her in, and the chain of commanall the way up failed. >> but you would agree it doesn't meet any criminal goal, goal of prosecuting the way it was handled? >> no, because you can't show the chain of how pieces of evidence went from point a to point b which you need to prove at trial. >> i hope it was just a terrible mistake. mr. clay recognized for five

minutes. >> mr. chairman, at this time i have no questions for this panel in the interest, i yield to mr. cummings. >> it seems to me that we do have -- something, some serious disconnect, and why that is, you know, i cannot imagine. i am going to say to you all that your testimony has been abundantly clear. but i want to for a moment go back to mrs. terry. you know, i often say right now i am preparing to do a eulogy saturday, one of the things i am thinking about as i sat here, i do believe part of life is death, but also part of death is

life. and what i mean by that is that, you know, we can't fully understand why somebody would leave us so young. particularly somebody like your son, your relative, who was so full of courage and the fact that he was willing to basically die for his country. we cannot always understand it. and i think we all struggle with it, partilarly when it is a young person. but i can say this, that i believe deep in my heart that some kind of wa out of his death will come life. in other words, the mere fact

that we're here right now, mr. hell yard, talking about this, th mere fact that this was not something that just shoved under the rug and moving on, the mere fact that there are probably already changes being made to this program, and i think it was you that said you wished you could -- you wished you coulsay this was the end of it, but there are guns still out there. but at least -- and to the agents i say this, too, ateast now we are moving in a direction where hopefully weeverse this and save some lives. that's why i said, miss terry, sometimes out of death comes life, and it's nothing, nothing, nothing can -- i'm not trying to -- nothing can bring a person back, but you know, because i wrestle with the question. i wrestle with it all the time

of why do so many of our best die young. that's why i said to you before, chairman issa asked a question a moment ago about cooperation in the justice department. i want to make it clear that i fought all my adult life trying to take guns, illegal guns out of hands of folks, period. it was you, mr. pa sell , all of your testimony was brilliant. it was straightforward, no frills, just straight testimony. and that's why i appreciate so much. but what you said, i don't want us to lose sight of it. and even the chairman talked about it.

these guns don't just end up in mexico, they end up in the united states, too, you know, and they are not just killing people, used to kill people in mexico, it is happening everywhere in our streets. and some kind of way, some kind of way, i listen to senator grassley, he is right, we need to leave the political piece at the door and try to figure out how do we address this problem. we have to keep in mind, too, mexico is right next door. so basically in a sense if these guns are flowing to mexico, basically what we're doing is turning the gun on ourselves or guns on ourselves. and this case is a prime example of that. you know, i just believe that we have to take this moment and make it bring life, bring le

out of this very horrific and rrible death, and with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. go to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and to the terry family, i cannot imagine the emotional roller coaster you have gone through and what today's testimony does to you. i appreciate that you are here and i am grateful to that. to thegents that are here, you know, this investigation as you well know relies intensely on your testimony, not only in whole but in hope we find an answer at the end of this investigation to see this never happens again. to that end, i want to ask a couple of questions, specifically to you, mr. cost a. i was here for the beginning and missed for a couple of votes. to have the surveillance without interdiction and arrest, did

that get the gist of it? >> for this investigation, yes. >> you stated in your testimony it has become common practice for atf supervisors to retaliate against employees that don't blindly tow the company line no matter the consequences. can you describe what any of that retaliation would be. >> i say refer back to investigations over the countless years, all the attorneys represented atf employees for all types of retaliation for whistle blowing, pudtive actions whether they deserved at. >> you mention the e-mail you received you thought was threatening. >> oh, yeah. >> were you personally threatened by mccallister or english or anyone else? >> no, they are my equal. but my supervisor would put tlin if you don't like what we do, go work for march cope a county sheriff's department. first of all, that was horrible

taste. there are brave men and women fighting with us fighting crime in the phoenix area. >> what happened to that supervisor since thep? >> i have no idea. >> were there any repercussions as a result of his actions? >> not of yet. >> still in the same position, supervisory capacity? >> i understand is a group supervisor, i believe in minneapolis, st. paul, still a group 14 supervisor. >> you said they would stop you from arresting straw purchasers and interdicting weapons. were there other occasions when the case agent told you to stand down, not make such arrests? >> in this investigation? >> in this investigation. >> again, it was common, more than one occasion. it was a few occasions. >> was there one where you watched them come out with a bag of guns? >> yes. one specific occasion, wish i had more time, i will try to be as brief as possible. we observed, i was with special agent dodson, we individual a straw rchase, ten fn pistols which by the way they penetrate

law enforcement vests, called cop killers. >> that had to be particularly painful. >> yes. >> you saw that and ordered to stand down. >> saw them transfer to unknown individual, unknown. i said i called this since i was shift supervisor, called the case agent and said we need to interdict these firearms. >> who was that supervisor. >> mccallister. >> i was told stand down, do not interdict, wasn't told why. he is street savvy, he makes a ten person surveillance, each car over and over to the point he stops in the middle of a small subdivision in front of special agent dodson and he is higher up in a jacked up pickup, we know he has at least ten fn pistols, and i said we need to engage. i called back in. the group supervisor who should have been there during the operation or case agent who should have been there in the operation were off for the day,

theyeft, and no way to get in touch with them. i was to point of contact them was probationary employee was english, and i had to take instruction, told me fall back. resur veil. >> that fall back, resurveillance, isn't that contrary to what atf policy should be? shouldn't the policy be make the arrest in the interdiction? >> yes, sir, most definitely. furthermore, it created an officer safety issue. the guy knew he was being followed but didn't know by whom. for all he knew, we could have been cartel members trying to rob the ten guns or could have been law enforcement. we didn't know. but it caused a serious officer safety issue. >> by the grace of god, could have been more than brian terry lost because of this. >> yes, sir. >> just briefly, i have a couple of seconds. is there anything you think your brother wod want this committee to know about his life and service? >> brian was about making a

difference and justice and i just feel that this country owes it to him because he spent his whole life fighting this country some way or another. >> i agree and he is a hero. i yield back. >> thank the gentlan. go to the gentleman from arizona. >> mrs. terry and family, i am deeply sorry. as a father, i don't know, i can just feel that pain. and i hope what i say next does not aggravate that in advance. okay? for the law enforcement folks, when you first heard about the shootings of congressman gabrielle giffords, was the a level of anxiety from atf that one of the weapons might trace back to operations of fast and furious? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> where did this anxiety come from and from whom specifically? >> sir, i received a phone call from my public information officer who was a friend of mine who said that there was concern

from chain of command that the gun was hopefully not a fast and furious gun. >> i would like to add every time there's a shooting, whether mrs. giffords or anybody, any time there was a shooting inhe general phoenix area or even arizona, we are fearful it might be one of thes firearms. >> this happened time and time again when tre was u.s. embassy personnel killed in juarez, mexico. fear spread through the division. >> i am feeling like i am a dentist, i didn't participate in the military, but i understand there's a chain of command, and i feel like i'm watching the movie aew good men. and you know, this wasn't done, you know, from what i'm gathering, we talked about special art forcell, getting jurisdiction in new york, we are talking about the drug cartels.

we are not talking about something simple. if an issue is this great, typically before this one, if you have been involved, how far did it go up that people knew about something like that? >> sir, i know i had discussions with zack william who wathe special agent in charge, former special agent in charge of phoenix division,the assistant specialagent in charge who was involved in this case when it first started was george gillette. he and i had discussions where he pretty much rolled his eyes when you voiced opposition to this. david vault and i hadn't conversed much, he is in a different building. from a briefing pair from knew to gillette this was briefed at the highest levels of atf. i heard the director was involved. and nobody stepped up and had a statement beyond the phoenix field division. i mean, there wer tragic error made here, and nobody has shown the decency and leadership to

step up and say hey, we made a mistake and should have done something more. that's what i find as appalling as anything else in this case, short of, of course, the tragedy to the terry family. >> absolutely right, sir. no one in atf up to acting director nelson has shown any significant leadership in this matter. and i can tell you i know that our former group supervis had to come to d.c. to brief our headquarters dea special operations division in virginia, and he briefed ethics on it and we secured the funding for most of that. i recall march of 2010 when acting director nelson came to phoenix division, spoke about the case. the case agent name, the supervisor by name, and even the defendants or would be defendants in the case. >> well, boy, this is going in the right way here. you know i am from arizona. >> yes, sir. >> you are currently aware and have for some time that

department of justice has had lawsuits against arizona. were you aware of any biases within your scope at atf or comments versus arizona by the atf or by doj in regards to them? >> no, sir. >> you're sure? >> i don't recall. >> seems like this whole lacks attitude from jurisdiction from timely and aggressive law enforcement that would create this. i am getting this opinion because you said you couldn't get a jurisdictional aspect of oversite in arizona and you took it to new york, did you not, sir? >> s, i did. >> seems like continued dismissal of acting charges and have a problem in arizona. we have seen a concerted effort that we have called out law enforcement on the border. i think specifically sheriff

devers. i see a lack of cooperation all the way across, so does arizona. we see a very defunct uniform -- from arizona, we see an organized, orchestrated plan or lack of plan from doj, particularly with arizona. >> interesting, sir, what i will add, one thing i will say emphatically is i have had limited dealings with tucson office of u.s. attorney's office, extensive dealings with phoenix. in phoenix, there are some good pele, i apologize for speaking ill of that fice, but there is distinct difference in attitude between tucson and phoenix office. u.s. attorney's office in tucson seems tore more amenable to working on cases with atf, amenable to finding justice than the u.s. attorney's office in phoenix and it is ironic because the u.s. attorney himself and chain of command are based in phoenix. that's all i can tell you.

>> thank you. >> recognize the gentle lady from new york for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to say to the mother of brian terry, i have six children and my heart is broken for you because your life is irrepairably changed and i wa you to know that what mr. hire said about having someone step up and accept responsibility, that will be the charge of this committee and that's what we will do for you because of the loss that you all sustained. you have my deepest sympathy. to the agents, thank you. thanksor your courage for being here today and for your forthrightness and standing up, doing the right thing. we appreciate that very much. i want to begin with miss terry. can you, is there a question you want us to ask and find out, can you share with us if there's

mething nagging you that you woullike answer to? >> well most of my questions and answers are done by my nephew. if i had anything to ask, i ask him and he gets me my right answers. >> then i would ask mr. hire, is there a question that you would like us to ask? >> i think we'd want to know if the dragnet that is set to find everyone involved in brian's murd will be set deep enough and wide enough to encompass anyone involved in operation fast and furious. if the guns used in brian's murder were part of this operation, then we'd want to know will everyone in that operation that had to deal with

those specific weapons be brought up on charges facilitating the murder of brian terry. >> thank you. we will ask that question on your behalf. there was a press conference held shortly after agent terry's murder, and during that press conference special agent william newell veemtly denied guns were walked this question is for mr. pore which he ee. were you at that press conference? >> i was not, but i watched it on tv. >> and did you hear him when he was asked regarding guns walking, did you hear his response to that? >> the hell no response? >> yes. >> i did, ma'am. >> and what was your reaction to that? >> i was appalled because it was a blatant lie. >> he was aware guns were being walked?

>> yes, ma'am. as i stated earlier, there was a briefing paper that went to headquarters, mr. knew if not the author would have had asac prepare it and mr. newell two months ago stated the agent in this case should get an award. still thinks it is an outstanding investigation. i find it personally appalling. >> my colleague, dr. gosar, brought up, made analogy between "a few good men" and this situation. but with "a fewood men" there was an order in place. there was a this is wh everyone followed, this was the policy. but my sense is and i would like to ask the three agents today, what happened in this situation was not the ordinary course of business, and so if you could each comment. >> i can tell you as recently as three weeks ago we had intradiks of a gun dealer. that individual showed up to

pick up the rifle with cash, probably drug money. he was not a resident of the united states but had false id. we had three trackers, two on the gun, one on the package, and air support, the whole nine yards. once we got to a point where we realized we could not safely monitor that weapon, that individual was stopped and the weapon seized and he was arrested. that's how we normal do business. i can tell you as a supervisor, no agents under my watch would have let a gun walk. i wouldn't have allowed it. >> special agent cosa? >> thank you. i would back up exactly what pete said. working a number of investigations, what we are going through now, i would never let one firearm walk. i am working a number of cases with other agencies and i have to assure them, and they know who i am, we will not let one firearm walk. we will stop that at l cost. one firearm on the seet is one

too many. that's all i have to say. >> special agent dodson? >> yes, ma'am. prior to my involvement with phoenix, in all my atf experience and my experience in local law enforcement, ma'am, i can te you that we've never let a gun walk. i've never seen it authorized or allowed to let a gun walk. and if one even got away from us, like i stated earlier, nobody went home until we found it. >> thank you all very much. again, thank you for your service, for being here today, and to brian's family again, our deepest sympathy. i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady and the witnesses for their testimony. it is not a normal practice to have government witnesses along with family or what sometimes are called civilians, but in this case i thought it was appropriate you all be there together. i appreciate all that you have done for us today to have us

better understand the situation, and mrs. terry, although i can never guarantee the outcome, about two years ago we were able to name a border patrol station after three fallen border patrol agents several decades after they were killed. i instructed my staff to work with the board patrol to find a mutually acceptable to you and the family location to name after brian and i will author that bill as soon as locations determined by the family. you have my promise we will do the other things you asked for here today, that we will keep this from being little plil until we get to the full truth of everything s dd

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

panel.mr. ronald weich is assis ttorney general, u.s. >> hearing will now come to order. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record indicate that the witness answered in the affirmative.

i note that you sat patiently through all of the previous testimony so not only do you understand the red light/green light but you will be the final witness and i appreciate your patience and your being here to hear everything that came before. you're now recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would ask that my full statement be included in the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, members of the committee, i'm very pleased to be here today to discuss the justice department's continuing efforts to respond to the committee's subpoena concerning ongoing criminal investigations on the southwest border and pending indictments in the u.s. district court for the district of arizona. i want to say at the outset that the department is fully committed to working with you in good faith to accommodate the committee's legitimate oversight interests. we hope the committee will similarly engage in good faith with the department in a manner

that recognizes the important confidentiality interests presented when congressional oversight involves open criminal investigations. it's difficult when the interests and principled exercise of the prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches come into potential conflict. the constitution envisions that the branches will engage in a process of cooperation and accommodation to avoid such conflicts, and we look forward to engaging in that process with you. as the committee is aware, many of the subpoenaed documents concern an open criminal investigation conducted by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms known as operation fast and furious. other subpoenaed documents concern the open investigation and pending prosecution regarding the shooting death of agent brian terry. let me just say here that the death of agent terry was a tragic loss and the justice department extends its deepest sympathies to his family. they testified courageously here a moment ago.

we were very pleased to hear on monday of the committee's commitment not to compromise the investigation into agent terry's murder or the broader gun trafficking investigation, and we are fully committed to bringing to justice those who are responsible for agent terry's death. the department recognizes the important role of congressional oversight. including oversight of the department's activities. it's the policy of the executive branch at the instruction of the president to comply with congressional requests for information to the fullest extent, consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the executive branch. at the same time, attempts to conduct congressional oversight of ongoing criminal investigations are highly unusual and present serious issues. as the department's office of legal counsel under president reagan explained in 1986, the policy of the executive branch throughout our nation's history has generally been to decline to provide committees of congress with access to or copies of open

law enforcement files except in extraordinary circumstances. the policy is designed to fulfill the department's obligations to preserve the independence, integrity and effectiveness of law enforcement investigations in the criminal justice process generally, and i want to say, this policy is completely nonpartisan. it has been relied on by administrations of both parties for decades. so in response to your subpoena, this department has been striving to reconcile the two principles by accommodating the committee's oversight interests while protecting our confidentiality interests. striking this balance can take time and effort. it is not the case that the department is refusing to comply with the department's subpoena. in fact, we are working diligently to satisfy the committee's core oversight interests without compromising the important purposes underlying the department's policy that i have described. the starting point for our approach is an agreement by the department that this committee

has a legitimate oversight interest in information shedding light on the genesis and strategy of the fast and furious operation. we have focused on identifying documents responsive to those needs. we have already made a good deal of information available. in total, the department has physically produced more than 675 pages of documents to the committee, made available more than 900 additional pages for review. in addition, we have made one atf official available for interview with the committee staff and we hope we will be able to schedule more interviews in the upcoming weeks. the committee has requested briefings on specific topics and we have agreed to provide those. the department has taken the extraordinary step of retaining an outside consultant, contractor, at substantial cost to assist us in building a data base of e-mails of the 19 individuals at atf whom the committee has indicated a primary interest in. we have engaged in a search of great magnitude to ensure that

we get the documents that you have asked for to the best of our ability. the individuals that are 19 selected user accounts you have focused on contain over 724,000 e-mails and attachments. in addition, the department has collected thousands of documents flagged to us by atf as potentially responsive. over two dozen lawyers at atf and the department are reviewing those documents and we have been able to provide documents to the committee, each of the last three working days. yesterday, monday and the friday before. the department will not be able to make available all of the documents encompassed by the subpoena because of the law enforcement confidentiality interests that i have already identified. we cannot provide certain core investigative and prosecutorial documents but we will work with the committee to identify and make available documents responsive to your core request. let me conclude by emphasizing

that the department recognizes that congressional oversight is an important part of our system of government. at the same time, congressional oversight that implicates ongoing congressional investigations presents sensitivities not raised in ordinary cases. despite the unique challenges posed by oversight of open criminal matters, we remain optimistic that the department will be able to satisfy the committee's core oversight interests while safeguarding the integrity, independence and effectiveness of the department's ongoing criminal investigation. thank you for inviting me to testify. i would be pleased to answer your questions. >> i certainly hope so. i recognize myself. sir, if you're going to count pages like this as discovery, you should be ashamed of yourself. the only thing that this says is internal use only, not for dissemination outside the atf. that's not discovery. that is saying that nothing within the document requested

under any circumstances are we going to be shown. it doesn't take so long if you don't spend your life redacting. the pages go on like this forever. you've given us black paper instead of white paper. you might as well have given us a ream still in its original binder. how dare you make an opening statement, how dare you make an opening statement of cooperation. we have had to subpoena again and again. your representatives of your organization, of the executive branch, have discouraged witnesses from coming forward. it has only been the courage of whistleblowers like the ones you saw here today that have caused us to have more documents on this case than you have ever suggested turning over, and how dare you talk about 900 pages, all of which were available on the internet. your first discovery that you ever turned over, you gave us already available on a google search documents only.

so sir, what executive privilege are you claiming? sensitivity is not envisioned. on monday, we held a hearing here, and i hope you had plenty of people watching it and if you didn't, get it on youtube. not one witness, not on direct or on cross, talked in terms of the kind of unique sensitivity. instead, they gave us case law and cases involving justice that say just the opposite of what you're saying. sir, you heard from the family and you heard from the whistleblowers. they have concerns about whether you're charging everybody in brian terry's murder and yes, i'm deeply concerned. we've promised to get to the bottom of it. if somebody wants to call that political interference, so be it. you should be held to a standard of why everybody, including the people who lied and buy those weapons, why they're not being charged if there's any chance they can be properly linked to his murder. but let's move on.

understand that's for the family. for this committee, we're investigating you, your organization, the executive branch above the phoenix office is who we're investigating. we want to know what felony stupid bad judgment led to allowing this program at the highest levels. when you've got the head of alcohol, tobacco and fire on basically his computer screen watching these things, don't tell me you didn't know what it was doing. it appears to us on this side of the aisle and i believe on the other side that you thought this was a good idea. today, are you prepared to tell us that this program was, in fact, necessary and a good idea and are you prepared to tell us who authorized it? who was the greatest, highest ranking person who authorized any part of it? >> mr. chairman, you have raised a number of issues. let me try -- >> do the last ones first. who auiz